[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11503-S11511]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RE-CREATE A MELTDOWN
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, we are hours away from the end of the
fiscal year. There are leadership meetings occurring everywhere. I have
become convinced that the other side has concluded it is to their
political advantage to try to re-create a meltdown here.
We have learned from reading in the paper that the now famous Dick
Morris, political consultant to the White House, spent 5 months
planning the last shutdown, and we see the exact same characteristics
as we come to trying to bring the year to a logical and bipartisan
closure. Let us remember that, unlike a year ago, we have 60,000 troops
in harm's way right now in Iraq and Bosnia. We have just watched a
hurricane sweep across our eastern shores, and we have families
desperately trying to dig out. We are 6 weeks from an election, and we
ought to get the electioneering out of the
[[Page S11504]]
Halls of Congress, come to closure here, lower the anxiety level for
all those families involved, keep the Federal Government on course and
move the campaigning to the elections.
Our majority leader, I believe, has done everything humanly possible
to keep this in a bipartisan manner, keep tempers cool. He has come out
here on the Senate floor and offered a resolution that would keep that
safety net under our troops and under our disaster-stricken families.
He has offered both sides six amendments and then come to closure on
Wednesday night at a logical hour.
What was the response? ``No way.''
He then offered to start a debate on a resolution that would keep the
safety net under the Government this past Tuesday with no limits on the
amendments in process but an agreement that we would finish in an
orderly manner by Wednesday night. What was the answer? ``Absolutely
not.''
Then he said, let's take the Department of Defense appropriations
conference report and, with a continuing resolution, you know, a safety
net under the Government, omnibus spending vehicle attached to it. ``No
way.''
So, option after option is presented, denial after denial occurs, and
the clock is running and the troops are still in harm's way.
The White House has indicated that it wants to make the illegal
immigration bill, which is a very, very large piece of legislation on
which hours and hours and hours have been expended, wants to make this
a center point, some sort of a leverage to bring us to the brink. I am
reading from the Los Angeles Times: ``Clinton seeks to halt further
limits on noncitizens. Holdup of appropriation would vex GOP members
anxious to hit campaign trail.''
Washington--Setting up a confrontation with Republican
leaders, the White House indicated Thursday that President
Clinton will not sign a must-pass spending bill [that is the
safety net] until the GOP agrees to amend separate
immigration legislation.
There will be others who will speak to this, but the White House said
you have to take out the Gallegly amendment. The Gallegly amendment
left States the right to choose to allow legal immigrants in schools or
not, and it has been argued and argued and argued. But the Republican
leadership of the Senate and House said, ``OK. In an effort to maintain
the safety net, in an effort to bring a bipartisan conclusion to the
104th Congress, we will remove it.'' So, they did. After they did it,
the White House says, ``No, that is not enough. Now we want more
changes in it before we will agree to sign it.''
This reminds me of the system that apparently Dick Morris organized a
year ago. Let me read from one of our daily papers, the Washington
headline. It says:
Immigration and Naturalization Service officials have
learned that about 5,000 of the 60,000 immigrants naturalized
in six days of mass ceremonies in Los Angeles last month
concealed past criminal records that might have disqualified
some of them from citizenship. . . .
Of the 5,000 who proved to have criminal records . . .
their alleged crimes ranged from serious offenses, such as
murder and rape, that would disqualify them from citizenship
to minor violations that would not.
This article says, ``Clinton administration election year program to
naturalize 1.3 million new citizens during this fiscal year ending
October 1 * * * ''
In other words, it is a rush, it is a political plan we have here to
rush people through so fast that the FBI cannot even provide the
traditional background check that would have spotted these murderers
and rapists who are now U.S. citizens because of this political
program.
Right here, it reads:
Because of the rush to naturalize citizens, none of this
FBI data was available to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service before the ceremony.
What kind of nonsense have we gotten ourselves into here? What price
are these elections worth?
It reads that:
Prior to the inception of citizenship, USA officials said
the INS generally waits until it receives the result of an
FBI check on applicants for naturalization before granting
them citizenship.
But that was pushed aside because the politics of this program was
more important.
Now we come to this illegal immigration bill, and all of a sudden, it
has become bigger than running the Government, and one cannot help but
miss the connection that we have throttled up this immigration bill, we
have used it as a wedge against keeping an orderly transition of
Government, a safety net under these troops that are overseas, our
seniors, our children's programs, school programs, all set aside for
the politics of the moment.
The idea of strategically using immigration and naturalization
politically, the idea of a political plan for posturing to destabilize
our troops, disaster victims, is not a very pretty picture. No wonder
there is so much cynicism about this process that goes on in our
Capital City.
Mr. President, we have been joined by the senior Senator from Utah,
by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate, by an
individual who has been deeply involved in this process since its
inception. I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Utah.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have to say I am very disappointed. The
Clinton administration is playing political games with the illegal
immigration reform bill. This is one of the most important bills of
this whole Congress. The Congress has worked very hard on this very
necessary legislation.
On August 2, 1996, President Clinton wrote to Speaker Gingrich. The
only item on which he said he would veto the immigration bill was the
Gallegly provision on the free public education of illegal aliens. The
provision was, in fact, contained in a draft conference report proposal
circulated on the evening of September 10 by Republican conferees.
At no time in the next 2 weeks, as this draft proposal was
circulated, was I advised that the administration wanted to remove
title V of that proposal, dealing with restrictions on benefits for
aliens.
Indeed, the administration mentioned the Gallegly provision was
really the big item to them; that if we took Gallegly out, the
President would sign the bill.
In order to accommodate this administration and facilitate passage of
this very tough illegal immigration bill, the Republican conferees
dropped the Gallegly provision outright, and I argued for the dropping
of that provision, mainly because I wanted to get this bill through
because there are excellent provisions in this bill that are
desperately needed.
Additional changes were made to accommodate other concerns expressed
by some Members on the other side of the aisle. For example, illegal
aliens' use of Head Start programs, English as a second language
programs, and job-training programs would not count in the
determination of whether the alien had become a public charge and,
therefore, subject to deportation. A legal immigrant's use of emergency
medical services would not be subject to deeming.
But the administration is now engaging in a shell game. Even though
we removed the one item the President said would lead to a veto and
made still other changes in the September 10 draft, and even though the
President had 2 weeks to weigh in and did not do so, the administration
is now calling upon its congressional allies to slow down and even
derail this bill unless wholesale changes are made to it. These changes
are coming out of left field. By so demanding, the President is acting
as the ``Guardian in Chief'' of the status quo.
These tactics make me wonder whether the President really favors
tough anti-illegal-immigration legislation. Why did he wait until after
the conference to make these demands as a condition of his support for
the bill?
The American people want Congress and the President to deliver on
this subject. The Congress is prepared to do so. Is the President?
Let me go over just a few of the items in the conference report that
the President is helping to delay action on.
This is the illegal immigration conference report. On border control
and illegal immigration control, we provide for 5,000 new Border Patrol
agents, which are dramatically needed at this time if we are going to
make any headway in this battle; 1,500 new Border Patrol support
personnel; and 1,200 new Immigration and Naturalization Service
investigators, which are very badly
[[Page S11505]]
needed. They will not be there unless this bill passes.
We provide for improved equipment and technology for border control;
for an entry-exit control system to keep track of the aliens who are
supposed to leave the United States; and for additional and improved
border control fences in southern California. All of that is included
in just part of this bill.
Let me go on.
With regard to alien smuggling, document fraud, and illegal
immigration enforcement, we provide:
Increased criminal penalties for alien smuggling and document fraud;
New document fraud and alien smuggling offenses;
New Federal prosecutors to investigate and prosecute immigration
violations;
That alien smuggling penalties will be calculated for each alien a
smuggler has smuggled in;
Wiretap authority in alien smuggling and document fraud cases; and
A new civil penalty for illegal entry.
We also make it unlawful to falsely claim U.S. citizenship for the
purpose of obtaining Federal benefits, which has been going on now for
years, and it is time to bring a stop to it. This bill will do it, and
this President is stopping this bill.
With regard to removal of illegal aliens, we streamline the removal
procedures so it can happen, so it can be done. Illegal aliens who are
removed will be inadmissible for certain periods.
We revise expedited exclusion provisions of the Terrorism Act to
ensure that those with valid asylum claims receive adequate protections
from persecution. We take care of those with valid asylum claims.
You can see, these are just a few more of the things that this bill
does, all of which are absolutely critical to solving this illegal
alien problem in our country. Let me just go on.
With regard to criminal aliens--and we have plenty of those in this
country right now; they are causing an awfully high percentage of the
crimes in our country today. We have expanded the definition of
``aggravated felon'' for the purposes of the Immigration and
Nationality Act. We have mandatory detention of most deportable
criminal aliens. We have improved removal of deportable criminal
aliens.
We eliminate loopholes under which criminal aliens have stayed within
the United States. We improve the identification of deportable criminal
aliens. We increase the Immigration and Naturalization Service
detention space by 9,000 beds, something they tell us absolutely has to
happen or we are going to have an even greater crisis on our hands than
we have now.
We also have additional financial resources for the detention of
criminal aliens and other detainees, which is absolutely critical if we
are going to fight and win this battle with regard to illegal
immigration. Let me go a little bit further.
With regard to interior enforcement, we provide that State and local
authorities will be able to perform immigration control functions,
including transporting illegal aliens to INS detention facilities
across State lines, something that currently we have difficulty doing.
A lot of States, just to get these people out of their States and get
them into detention facilities, would pay for the costs
themselves. Many States would provide the sheriffs' deputies and others
to get these people out of their States. We provide they can do that,
of course, with the cooperation and help of the INS.
We ensure at least 10 active-duty INS agents in each State. We
certainly think that is critical. Of course, in the major border
States, we have many more than that.
We improve legal border crossing.
We have increased border inspectors to speed up legal border
crossing.
We have commuter-lane pilot projects for frequent border crossers.
As you can see, all of these various provisions that we have in this
bill are absolutely crucial if we are going to make any headway against
this problem of illegal immigration.
I have to tell you that it took this Congress to do some of these
tough things. I want to personally compliment the distinguished Senator
from Wyoming, Senator Simpson, for working so hard as subcommittee
chairman to get it done, and the whole Judiciary Committee, because it
was there that we really worked out the difficulties between the
Democrats and the Republicans, and I think came up with a pretty
superior bill, which now has become primarily the bill that came out of
conference.
I want to compliment Lamar Smith and Mr. Gallegly and Mr. McCollum,
and others over in the House who have played a tremendous role in this
matter.
In the Senate, of course, Senator Simpson and everybody on the
Judiciary Committee deserves enormous credit. On the other side of the
aisle, Senator Kennedy and Senator Feinstein have really played
significant roles, although Senator Feinstein is primarily working with
us today to try to get the bill through. She has done an excellent job.
She has fought hard for her State. She realizes California, Texas,
Arizona, Florida--all of these Southern States, these border States--
have to have the bill. So she is fighting to get it. At the same time
she is fighting her guts out, this administration is trying to undercut
her and undercut what we have done.
It is an amazing thing that we have been able to bring 535 people
together in the legislature, at least a majority of them, to pass a
bill that will make a difference in this country.
This conference report passed overwhelmingly in the House for good
reason. People over there are concerned about what is happening. And it
will pass overwhelmingly here if we can get it up. Frankly, the only
logjam in getting it up happens to be the President of the United
States and his cohorts who are all over Capitol Hill trying to ruin
this illegal immigration bill.
To me, I cannot understand that kind of reasoning. I cannot
understand that type of activity. I cannot understand the President
doing this. I cannot understand why they are not working with us to get
this bill through, especially since we made every effort to get the
Gallegly amendment out of that bill.
To be honest with you, the Gallegly amendment was not as bad as some
people have been making out. It was a rule of Federalism. All Mr.
Gallegly and California wanted is for the States to have a right to
determine whether or not they will educate illegal alien kids, at a
tremendous cost--$2 billion to $3 billion in California.
I do not think there is a State in this Union that would decide not
to do so, even California, in spite of what some out there would like
to do. But the fact of the matter is, it was not a bad amendment in
terms of Federalism. It would not have hurt anybody, in my opinion. We
even modified it to try to please the President, so we grandfathered K
through 6 and 7 through 12. We provided a safety valve so we could rip
it out of the bill at a future time, with expedited consideration by
the Congress. But that was not good enough.
Finally, it came down to literally just ripping it out of the bill,
calling it up maybe separately, but ripping it out of the bill to
satisfy this President who said he would not veto this bill if we got
rid of Gallegly. No sooner did we do that, and last night they come up
here and said, we want title 5 out of the bill. Title 5 is a pretty
important provision of this bill. As a matter of fact, it contains a
number of very important provisions if we are going to get a handle on
illegal immigration in this country. It is incredible to me that they
would do that after they gave their word, it seemed to me, with regard
to the Gallegly amendment and taking it out of the bill.
Mr. President, I see my time is up. Let me just finish by saying
this. This is an important bill. It is one of the most important bills
in this country's history. We can no longer afford to allow our borders
to be just overrun by illegal aliens. There are some indications that
this administration has been soft on letting people into this country,
most of whom vote Democratic once they get here as noncitizen illegals.
Frankly, a lot of our criminality in this country today happens to be
coming from criminal, illegal aliens who are ripping our country apart.
A lot of the drugs are coming from these people.
This bill will play a significant role in making a real difference
for the benefit of our country, and I am calling upon the President and
the people at the White House to get off their duffs
[[Page S11506]]
and start helping us to get it passed and quit this type of activity. I
yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks by the Senator
from Utah. I now yield up to 10 minutes to the senior Senator from
Missouri and the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on VA-HUD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia. I
appreciate the opportunity to explain to some of my colleagues, and
those who might be interested, what is going on with the appropriations
process.
I think all of us know that the time has come to shut down this
session of Congress. We have a couple of very important things pending.
The fine chairman of the Judiciary Committee has just described what
needs to be done on a problem that everyone recognizes, and that is the
problem of illegal immigration. Can we move forward on that bill? I
think it is one of the key elements of a resolution of this session of
the Congress. But everybody knows that before we leave town we have to
provide the appropriations measures to keep the Government running and
to keep programs going which the Federal Government has undertaken as a
responsibility.
I understand that perhaps an hour or so ago the Democratic leaders on
this side and on the House side had another one of their infamous non-
infomercials, a news conference in which the facts were not necessarily
the absolute requirement of any of the discussions. I believe they were
talking about how the Republicans intend to shut down the Government
again.
Let me be clear about one thing, Mr. President. The distinguished
occupant of the chair chairs an important appropriations subcommittee.
The appropriations bills are extremely important, and we work on those
appropriations bills on a bipartisan basis.
I have the pleasure of serving as chairman of the Veterans'
Administration, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies
Subcommittee. And on that subcommittee, I am greatly aided and assisted
by my ranking member, Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Democrat from
Maryland.
Now, we often have disagreements on those measures, but we work them
out here on the floor. We can, in this body, pass measures that are
greatly objectionable because of the right of any Senator to
filibuster. So we, in essence, need to have 60 votes for a
controversial provision in any measure. And we customarily operate on
the basis of courtesy to take into consideration the views of the
minority.
In this VA-HUD bill, we went a long way because there were a lot on
this side of the aisle who were not thrilled about AmeriCorps, the
national service program. Yet, as an accommodation to those who felt
strongly about it--Senator Mikulski was an original sponsor of it; it
had the strong backing of the administration--we put $400 million in
that bill for AmeriCorps. We carried it over to conference with the
House. And the House, many on our side, felt even more strongly in
opposition. We made the point that we fought the battle and we won
because we knew it was important to Members on the Democratic side
here, to the President. We included that in the bill.
Our bill has some very, very difficult things. Allocating scarce
funds for housing, for urban affairs, for the Veterans Administration,
for EPA, for NASA, for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We
worked all those out. During the course of those conversations, we had
not only the budget requests from the White House in front of it, but
we were assured that the White House had conversations with and
expressed their views to the members on the minority side in our
committee.
We came up with what I think was a good bill. It passed
overwhelmingly. It had some additional things on it this time. It
became not just an appropriations bill, it is an authorizing bill, a
new entitlement bill. But we got it through.
Yesterday, at about 10 o'clock, the President signed the VA-HUD bill.
He signed it, signed it into law. It is law. The appropriations bill is
the law for spending for those key agencies for the coming fiscal year.
Imagine my surprise when I was summoned to a meeting of the
negotiators on the omnibus appropriations bill to handle the unresolved
issues in appropriations. I was told by Mr. Panetta, a representative
of the White House, that they wanted to put $160-plus million in the
VA-HUD bill. I said, ``Excuse me, I believe the President just signed
the bill yesterday.'' They said, ``Well, the President had some
reservations and he wanted more money.''
There are a lot of things, Mr. President, on which I wanted more
money. We did not put enough money into the preservation of low-income
housing. We need to do more in terms of an investment to make sure we
have an affordable housing stock, that we have the stock of housing
that is either publicly owned or reflects public assistance through
section 8 programs in this country. If we had more money in the budget
I could find some very, very important places to put it in terms of
housing, in terms of science, space, and environment, giving more money
to the States for their State revolving funds.
The White House said, ``But we want to add some more money to your
bill.'' I said, ``This is the bill that you signed about 26 hours
ago.'' They said, ``No, we had reservations.''
Mr. President, I heard of the old trick of moving the goalposts. Some
may like the analogy of the Peanuts cartoon strip, where every fall
Lucy promises to hold the football for Charlie Brown. She says she will
not move the ball this year, but every year she takes the ball away.
We are beginning to learn very slowly, too slowly I am afraid, that
this administration does not negotiate in good faith. This
administration has some other game they are playing. It is not designed
to achieve a reasonable accommodation between the parties, between the
legislative and executive branch, to move forward on appropriations.
Now, if there is a shutdown, let me assure you it will be a shutdown
engineered by the White House and their allies in Congress. This is
where the responsibility will lie.
Why do we have a number of bills that are not signed? Mr. President,
you and I have been here while we went through the process. Now, a lot
of people may not understand what we say by the term ``filibuster by
amendment.'' But for those who do not understand the procedures of the
Senate, unless you have a unanimous consent agreement, unless there is
an agreement before you start out on a bill, you can continue to add
things and add things and add things. You can never come to closure. As
Republicans we have 53 votes. If we wanted to cut off debate we have to
have 60 votes. We cannot stop people from talking or filibustering by
adding amendment after amendment after amendment. That is what was done
on Treasury-Postal. I worked on the Treasury-Postal bill in the
previous Congress as the ranking member, and it funds some very
important things--White House, Treasury, Customs, GSA, things like that
are very, very important. There are not 50 different amendments that
needed to be offered to that bill.
I remember one of the measures we voted on was a measure to establish
a new Federal responsibility, a new Federal responsibility relating to
guns in schools. Mr. President, if there is one area where the Federal
Government has not been before, it is in local law enforcement. I
suggest that the Federal Government has fallen short in those
responsibilities which are properly the Federal Government's
responsibility.
We fought--and when I was the ranking member, Senator DeConcini was
the chairman of the committee, my good friend from Arizona--we fought
against cutting back on the Customs work in interdiction, to stop drugs
coming into this country. We have cut too much in the Federal law
enforcement agencies. We certainly do not need to be setting up new
Federal responsibilities which directly overlap and are totally
inconsistent with local law enforcement responsibilities.
But that amendment was voted on on the Treasury-Postal appropriations
bills, after 3 days on the floor, a bill
[[Page S11507]]
which should take at most 2 days to debate those issues, that genuinely
related to appropriations for Treasury-Postal accounts. We had so many
amendments still hanging out that the majority leader had to withdraw
the bill.
We went on to Interior, to try to get a resolution for those. Then
the amendments kept coming out of the woodwork. If anybody does not
understand it, I can tell you unless you have 60 votes and can invoke
cloture continually, you can continue to hold this place hostage by
offering amendments or talking as long as you want.
Now, we have made a good-faith effort across the board to get the
appropriations bills done. I have no interest in going back and
reopening one of the appropriations bills that has been signed. More
and more ideas keep floating in from the White House. They want to add
this. They want to add that. They want to write their own legislation.
It is as if they never worked in a government where there was a strong
opposition party--in this case, a party in control of the Congress.
I came from Missouri where I served as Governor for 8 years with a 2-
1 Democratic majority in both houses. I learned early on, I had to
learn, that bipartisan cooperation, comity, honesty in dealing with the
other side was essential to make the process move. We do not have that
here. It is perhaps the fact that the President comes from a one-party
State.
All I can say is we are doing our work on appropriations. We are
going to move forward on appropriations. I hope our leaders will make
the best offer they can, trying to guess what the White House's latest
demands are to accommodate as many as they can. If they will not, we
should do a continuing resolution and get out of town.
One last piece of business that we have from the small business
committee, since my colleagues on the other side are not present I will
not at this point ask unanimous consent to proceed to H.R. 3719. That
is vitally important if we are to keep the lending programs, 5047(a)
program, SBIC program working, for the Small Business Administration.
It is being held up on the minority side. I will come back and explain
in detail why the SBA and small business in this country needs that
measure. I hope the hold is lifted so we could pass this measure, many
of the provisions of which have already been passed in this body.
I acknowledge and appreciate the work of the Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his remarks.
The moving goalposts, as he has described, become clearer and more
evident with each passing hour here in the Nation's Capitol.
Unfortunately, the anxiety level of those--not suffered by us--by the
families of the troops overseas and flood victims and all those people
dependent on the system, needing the safety net we are trying to put in
place.
We have been joined by the senior Senator from Wyoming who is the
preeminent authority on legal and illegal immigration and has been
undergoing this moving goalpost now for some period of time. I am glad
he could join us.
I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank my colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell. I
think it is tremendous that you have arranged this bit of time to share
with the American people so we each get to step forward and tell the
theory of the moving of the goalpost. To me it is the moving of the
stadium. I think they moved the end zones, the stadium, and as far as I
know, the campus. We will review this for a minute.
I have been doing this stuff for 31 years. It is called legislating.
You do it with Democrats if you are a Republican, and hopefully if you
are a Democrat, you do it with Republicans. It cannot work any other
way.
Over the years of my time here I have served as chairman or ranking
member with some very unique partisan people. Senator Al Cranston with
the Veterans' Affairs; Gary Hart, nuclear; Ted Kennedy, Senator
Kennedy, with Immigration and Judiciary; Joe Lieberman, Bob Graham,
nuclear; Jay Rockefeller.
These are the things that I have done. It has always been done with
civility. It has always been done openly and honestly. I can't function
in an atmosphere where people lie. That is what is happening here, and
I am appalled by it. Let me tell you, it isn't about Ted Kennedy, who
is one of my most delightful friends, and I have the highest respect
for him. Let me tell you what happened yesterday. Get it down. The
administration, the White House--remember, they told us if we would
take the Gallegly amendment off the immigration reform bill, it wasn't,
``Well, I might,'' but it was, ``I will probably sign it.'' It was said
that way. We didn't have any reason to believe they would not sign it
at the White House.
Last night, in good faith, myself, Senator Kennedy, Howard Berman, a
Democrat from California who I delight in and enjoy very much,
Congressman Lamar Smith, who is just one of the most splendid young men
I know, who does a tremendous job with the chairmanship of immigration,
the four of us sat down to see if we could give a little on title V
because the latest request from the White House was, ``If you get rid
of title V, we will complete all the work on the CR and sign it by
tonight at midnight.'' The only thing wrong with that is nobody had
ever agreed to give up title V--not Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the
committee, not Senator Kyl, a member of the subcommittee, not Senator
Feinstein, who has been an absolute stalwart in working with me; she
deserves extraordinary credit for doing strong, strong legislative work
in an atmosphere of high emotion from her State. She and Senator Boxer
are more affected than anybody else in this place. They have stepped up
to the plate, and it is a great honor to work with them.
So we are going to get down to title V. I said we are going to go to
cloture next Monday on that bill, and we have about 70 votes in our
pocket, which will get you cloture in any ballpark here; you need 60
votes. So most of the Republicans would vote for cloture, and thanks to
the work of Senator Feinstein and others on that side of the aisle, we
would get cloture because there are 15 to 20 Democrats who will get
cloture for us and help with that. So here we are.
On August 2, the President wrote a letter to the Speaker to express
concern about a single provision of the immigration bill, which was
authorizing the States to deny a free public education to illegal
aliens. The President threatened to veto the conference report if that
provision or anything like it was included. No other provision was
opposed in that way.
After several weeks of hard, considerable debate and efforts to
develop an acceptable compromise--admittedly, it was done, I think, in
too much of a partisan way, but it was done and everybody knew what
happened; everybody has seen the conference report--we agreed to delete
the provision that was very popular in the House and had considerable
support in the Senate. Yet, within the last day or so, the White House
and Democrat allies have moved the goal posts. They have been
attempting to obtain even further changes. All the time there is
something new.
You have had it reported here. I have never seen anything like it in
31 years of legislating. It would be bad enough if this were done by
another veto threat, and early in the session. But this time the
President is attempting to blackmail this Congress into accepting the
changes he wants in the immigration bill, as well as changes in several
other bills. Get this one: You could tell by the tenor of the
discussion when the White House person entered the room last night that
what they were really trying to do was get the stuff they could not get
in the welfare bill and get it out of the immigration bill and correct
the deficiencies in the welfare bill. I am not having any part of that.
The President signed the welfare bill. I commended him on that. I
thought that was great. He got flack and he wants to change some of it.
But he isn't going to do it on this watch and, surely, he is not going
to do it with an immigration bill. I can assure you of that.
Then we have this threat to refuse to sign the CR. We have the threat
to close the Government. Let me tell you, that won't work this trip
because we are going to stick around to see that the Government does
not shut down, because we are going to shovel this back and say there
is nothing in there that would shut the Government down.
[[Page S11508]]
The Democrats and the Republicans in the House and the Senate, trying
their best, did what they could. If they fail, then the Republicans,
which is the duty of leadership, produce a bill. If the President wants
to veto it, do so.
So here we are. You can see the scenario--oh, it is so vivid.
Tuesday, we will have to think about closing the Government. Guess who
will take the flack for that? Those bone-headed Republicans that let it
happen the last time. That is not going to happen this trip because
there is nothing in there to veto. It is called doing the business of
the United States. It is done by people like Mark Hatfield and Senator
Robert Byrd, and by people like Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond, and
it is done by people like Senator Feinstein and Senator Simpson; it is
done that way over here. Maybe the White House does not understand
that, but I understand it.
So now what are the changes that we want here? Oh, well, title V, get
rid of title V. Why would you want to get rid of title V? I will tell
you what is in it.
Without the requirements that sponsors earn at least 140 percent to
200 percent of the poverty line, welfare recipients will be in a
position to sponsor immigrant relatives, even though they will be
unable to provide the support for that relative that they have
promised. These immigrant relatives will then be able to qualify for
welfare programs costing the United States billions of dollars.
That is in title V.
Without the amendments making a ``public charge'' deportation
effective, immigrants who go on welfare soon after their entry will be
able to continue to receive it indefinitely, without fear of
deportation.
That is in title V.
Without ``deeming''--in other words, considering that the petitioner
and his or her income is that of the immigrant--for immigrants now in
the country, many immigrants will continue to receive welfare, even
though their middle-class or wealthy relatives who sponsored them are
perfectly able to provide needed support.
That is in title V.
Without the new welfare verification requirements, illegal aliens,
who claim to be U.S. citizens and just stand there and say they are,
will continue to receive assistance, such as AFDC, Medicaid, and public
housing.
That is in title V.
Without the provision authorizing full reimbursement to States--
listen to this one--now being forced by Federal mandate to provide
emergency medical services to illegal aliens, the heavy burden of that
mandate will continue to grow.
That is in title V.
Without the provisions expediting removal of illegal aliens from
public housing--which is the work of Senator Reid and what he has been
talking about for years--illegals will continue to occupy public
housing, displacing U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens.
That is in title V.
Without the prohibition on States treating illegal aliens more
favorably than U.S. citizens, States will be able to make illegals
eligible for reduced in-State tuition at taxpayer-funded State
colleges.
That is in title V, together with all the stuff to clean up their use
of unemployment compensation, their use of the Social Security system,
and much, much more.
That is what is in title V.
There we are. I thank Senator Feinstein for being most courageous in
the face of the onslaught that I am sure she is going to get. I want to
commend Senator Kennedy, who worked with me until 2 in the morning to
do a package, which must have drawn such a great big chuckle this
morning when it got down to the White House. I have been doing this a
long time, and I have always done it with absolute honesty. I have done
it with orneriness, with passion, and I have done it with glee, with
grief, but I didn't lie. This is appalling, absolutely appalling.
If the trick is simply to shut down the Government, well, that is
nothing. I never spent a nickel's worth of time figuring out how to do
a bill that would go to the President so he would veto it so he would
lose California. That has never been in my scenario--never would be;
don't care about that. I care about doing something about illegal
immigration. We couldn't do anything about legal immigration. That is
for another date.
Ladies and gentleman, this is a strong, potent, powerful bill. And,
if all goes well, it will be voted on; Monday at 2 o'clock on a cloture
vote. And cloture will carry. The debate will be cut off, and after the
hours of postcloture and debate are over, we will do that on through
the night, we will vote. We will do an immigration bill, and place it
on the President's desk. I hope and pray that he will sign it. But it
isn't crafted to blow up in his face, and it was not crafted by people
who come to Congress, as they have been doing in these last days who
stand in front of you and do something different than they said they
would do before. And I am sick of it.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from
Wyoming for coming and sharing these last 2 days with us, and the
American people. It is quite an alarming story.
We have been joined by the senior Senator from New Mexico, the
chairman of the Budget Committee, and I yield up to 10 minutes to the
Senator from New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you, very much, Mr. President. I thank the
Senator from Georgia.
Let me thank Senator Simpson for his forthrightness and the way he
conducted himself as a Senator. The fact that he has been honest, and
the fact that he has been diligent in everything he has done around
here, lends great credence to what he is talking about here today.
Frankly, let me just pledge to the Senator--not that I can be of any
help, but I agree with everything he has said here on the floor. In
fact, I think there is a lot of game playing going on right now, not
only with reference to that bill but also the immigration bill. But
there are a lot of other things going on about who is going to be
responsible for closing down the Government. Everybody is on that kick.
We have a few hours, and we have to get our work done. That is what the
Senator has been talking about--getting our work done. There isn't
anybody trying to close the Government down. And the President is
getting almost everything he has asked for in major expenditures in
terms of education, and in terms of the environment. What is there to
close the Government down over? It can't be the kinds of things he was
talking about last year. It must be something very strange that is in
somebody's craw around here. And I wonder just precisely who it is and
what the agenda is.
I do not think we ought to be threatening each other with closing
down the Government, or using tricks, or gimmicks to try to blame it on
somebody. We can get this job done, and get it done right. Every piece
of legislation that is ever dreamed up can't get passed. With 200
amendments around here that have nothing to do with appropriations, we
can't fix all of those in the last 72 hours of the U.S. Congress.
I didn't come down here to talk on that. I came to take on the
economy and a few of the contentions presented on the floor of the
Senate by some on the Democratic side about the status of the economy.
If I get enough time when I am finished analyzing what really has
happened and whether there is really anything to brag about in terms of
how the economy has proceeded in the last year or two, if I have enough
time, what I have to say will fit right into why Senator Dole has a new
economic plan.
Let me first suggest that yesterday some Census data came out that
permitted the President of the United States and some Members of the
other party to tell the American people that things are really going
right, and that the economic facts are really on the side of staying
the course that the President has set for America.
One of the things that they talked about has to do with real median
household incomes. Listen to this. They are saying the real median
household income rose. And so they are saying we are on the right
track. It is going up.
Let us get the numbers and let us get the facts. It rose from $33,178
in 1994 to $34,076--not a significant increase, but an increase. But
what was not said was
[[Page S11509]]
that even as it has increased, it is still lower than it was in 1990
under President Bush. It was only higher in 1995 relative to the low
levels it fell to in the early 1990s. It increased in 1995 because it
went down after 1990 during this era that the President claims is a
great economic era and we ought to maintain the status quo. Under the
Bush administration it was $34,914, which is almost $900 higher than it
is now. The year 1995's level only rose from 1994 because it was
recouping some of the ground lost in the preceding years.
Arguments are also being made that Census data shows a lessening of
income inequality in 1995. They note that the income share of the top
quintile has gone down some, thus bridging that gap between the poor
and the rich, or the rich and the poor. Let us look at that.
In 1995, there is seemingly something to brag about because the top
quintile's income share went from 49.1 percent to 48.7 percent, four-
tenths of a percent down. What isn't said is that the income
distribution was much more fair in 1992--at that point, the top
quintile had only 46.9 percent of the total income pie. Thus, income
inequality was much less when the President was inaugurated, it then
worsened significantly, and then eased back fractionally last year. For
this, we should tell America the economy is doing splendidly? When in
its best status under President Clinton, income inequality is still
worse than the last year of the previous Presidency.
I do not choose to make this a battle among Presidents in a partisan
fashion. But I do choose to say that when I left the White House
yesterday at a bill signing, I heard our President make these
statements. Somebody wanted my comments. I will tell the Senate what I
said to that newsperson. I said, ``I do not want to comment now,
because I want to go back and look at the facts because something
intuitively tells me that there is another side to this story.'' I came
back and asked: Is there? I just told you that, indeed, there is.
Let me take another one. We are talking about trying to have the
lower income people get a bigger share of the economic pie when
compared with the wealthier people. So bragging is going on that in
fact the bottom quintile did increase its share a little bit in 1995,
in terms of the size of the income pie that they took in. There again,
it is interesting to note that that the bottom quintile's income share
was higher in the last year of Bush Administration than it is now
during the bragging year. It only went up in 1995 because their share
went down so far during the first 2 years of this administration.
But most importantly, there is another aspect of the Census report
which concerns me greatly - real median earnings for full-time workers
in America are still going down--not up. The very same survey that
yielded some limited good news about 1995 median incomes says the
following: For men in 1995, real median earnings were down 0.7 percent,
and for women, real median earnings were down 1.5 percent--not up;
down. In fact, real median earnings have fallen in every year of the
Clinton administration for both men and women.
That brings me to what I would have been saying on the floor in light
of some of the discussions about the Dole economic plan. And I am going
to run out of time. But it is a perfect entre to say to those who want
to listen, that the distinguished Republican majority leader who is
running for President of the United States had two options on the
economy when he decided to run. One was to say, ``The status quo is
neat. Let us just stay on the status quo for the next 4 years, if I am
elected President.'' That would have put him right alongside of our
President saying things are really going very well. Or he could ask
some experts for the best we can put together. ``Can we do better?
Should we do better?'' He did that. And the answer given by eminent
economists--not wild-eyed economists with new theories, but mainstream
Nobel laureate economists--was, ``We can do better and we should do
better.'' Then the question was asked: ``How do we do it?'' And,
interestingly enough, what our candidate for President has been busy
trying to do is to argue for the six-point plan they recommended, a
plan which would produce some economic figures that would be truly
worthy of boasting about. I am not here saying he has presented his
message magnificently. But, I believe that if the details of his plan
got out to the public more fully, it would change the election as
people identified increasingly with his vision of America.
Mr. President, I have just summarized for the Senate what the
situation is with reference to incomes for men and for women in the
year 1995. And even though some Members on the other side of the aisle
and the President have touted an increase in real median household
incomes in the year 1995, I remind the Senate that is the case only as
compared with 1994. But if you look to 1990 during the Bush
administration, median household income was higher than it is today.
Furthermore, throughout every year of the Clinton administration, real
earnings for full-time workers have fallen. They grew by minus seven-
tenths of a percent for men, and minus 1.5 for women. That means we are
not making any real headway in what people are earning for the time
they spend working trying to get ahead.
It also means that income inequality is not getting any less. The
President has championed the fact that the wealthy people's share of
the total income pie came down in 1995. While this small move toward
lessened income inequality is welcome, this gain is small in comparison
to significant widening of income inequality which has occurred during
his Presidency. In fact, the income distribution is far more unequal
today than it was in 1992, the last year of the Bush Presidency.
Coupled with these above facts, there are other striking economic
woes that now face the U.S. economy. We are experiencing the slowest
growth rate of any recovery in the last 50 years. We have the lowest
productivity growth during any Presidential term in the last 50 years.
Tax burdens for middle income individuals have risen sharply under this
President. The personal savings rate is now at its lowest average level
of any President's term in 50 years. With this unfortunate backdrop, it
is no wonder that many Americans wonder why they are working harder and
getting less for their work.
Senator Dole, as I indicated in my earlier remarks, looked to five or
six of the best economists around and they suggested it need not be
this way; that we ought to be able to do it better. What they
suggested, he adopted after a few months of study and discernment.
The conclusions reached were that Senator Dole and his running mate
should not run for the White House, based upon trying to keep the
American economy as it is now and keep the fiscal policy as it is now
and the tax policy as it is now and the regulatory policy as it is now
and the education policy as it is now, because to do so is to extend
this very serious negative backdrop of the American economy for working
men and women. The wealth machine that is enumerated in the gross
domestic product is not getting big enough each year for those people
working to get more for what they do, rather than stagnating or getting
less.
Essentially, Senator Dole concluded, as I urged him to do, that we
ought to try to do better, and that meant he had to come up with an
economic plan that experts would say would do better. One that would
ensure that the earnings of all Americans and median household incomes
would be up in 7 or 8 years as compared with 1992 or 1996 or 1995.
These economists recommended six things. Six things are his plan.
Where people have learned about these and understand them, they opt for
this economic direction instead of the status quo. First, he suggests
that to get there we ought to adopt a constitutional amendment to
balance the budget. Clearly, I believe it is fair to say that whomever
is President next year can cause that to happen, for it would already
be out there in the States with ratification working had this President
wanted it, for all he had to do was say the word and one or two--I
cannot remember which--Democrats would have clearly gone with him.
The next key item is a program to balance the budget by the year
2002. Might I say in that regard that there are some who insist that he
tell us how, our candidate for President Dole, tell us precisely how he
would do that. Mr. President and fellow Senators, he
[[Page S11510]]
is not President, he does not have OMB with a couple hundred staff. He
cannot produce a 1,000-page document. But he has said essentially here
are some things I would do. There are two parts to it and they are both
easily understood. Adopt this year's Republican budget and implement
it, and then reduce spending over the next 6 years, 1 percent a year
for a total of 6 percent over 6 years.
Now, what do you get for that is what the American people ought to
ask. And they get the next part of this reform. And it is tax rates are
cut 5 percent a year for 3 years--a 15-percent reduction in tax rates.
Let me spell out what this means for ordinary citizens. A married
couple with two children earning $30,000 would save $1,272 per year. A
married couple with two children earning $50,000 would save $1,657 per
year. A retired couple with no children earning $60,000 would save
$1,727 per year.
This is money that average citizens in our sovereign States would
keep. Money that now gets sent to Washington in taxes. They could keep
and spend this money however they see fit, instead of under the Federal
Government's budget and programs.
In addition, the capital gains tax, which is an onerous imposition
upon the sale of assets and the sale of investments would be changed to
be 50 percent of what it is now, or 14 percent. All our industrial
partners in the world tax these kinds of asset sales much less than we
do, and they make their money and their resources work better for them,
and make the economy more vibrant. We must do the same. This is a
direct effort to cause growth to occur more. It would make productivity
go up, for there is more to invest and more to be saved.
His fourth point was to do away with the IRS as we know it.
Furthermore, in his first term, he intends to reform the entire tax
structure, to press hard for savings and investments which are now
penalized under the code because, for the most part, they are taxed
twice.
And that left two other major points, for you can see this plan of
his is not just a tax cut, tax reform plan.
The two remaining issues are very important. Modify the regulations
on business in America so that you keep those that are needed and
effective, and you reduce those that are not effective and not needed.
Now, how does that help? To the extent that we are spending money for
excess compliance, it cannot go into the pockets of our working people.
It cannot be part of real growth for it goes into unnecessary
expenditures that cool the economy rather than let it grow.
On that score he recommends in this plan that the best economists in
America helped prepare, that the justice system, the civil justice
system should be also amended, modified and made more responsive by
eliminating some of the drag and costliness of litigation that is truly
not necessary for the American people's well-being. Such litigation
extracts an enormous cost from the economy, which goes to attorney's
fees and court costs, public punitive damages and things like that that
almost everybody thinks are significantly out of hand. To the extent
that cost is put on the economy, there is less there for wage earners
to get in their paychecks and for small business to earn as the
businesses grow.
And then last but definitely not least, if you are going to have more
productivity in America and begin to reduce income inequality
significantly and permanently, we must reform our education system.
Others have different solutions. They say ``why don't you tax the rich
more?''. Well, let me give you a very living example that it does not
work, because we have taxed the rich more under this President's
economic policies and, lo and behold, the spread between the rich and
the poor got bigger. I just told you that in my previous remarks.
It did not get littler; it got bigger. In fact, the President is
bragging today because in 1 out of the last 3 years, income inequality
came down a bit, but it never was as favorable as it was in the last
year of President Bush's term. So, that is not a solution.
Almost everybody says we have to do a better job of training some
Americans who are not getting educated very well, not getting trained
very well, and thus do not get in the mainstream and cannot earn good
money on good jobs. One of the economists advising our nominee, the
Republican nominee, is a Nobel laureate named Dr. Becker, from the
University of Chicago. His expertise is the development of the human
side, that is people development in a capitalistic society. The
recommendation is that President-elect Dole be bold, and he say boldly
and firmly: We are going to make education in the ghettos and in the
barrios and in the areas where our young people are getting inferior
education, we are going to change that even if we have to give them
scholarships to move out of that area to get educated in another
school.
There would be a whole reshuffling, reorganizing, reforming of how we
educate those who are getting poor education in this system, for
whatever reason. While we are busy about that, the way we train post-
high-school kids and young people for living jobs in the workplace,
that we take the money we are spending and, instead of throwing it
around in hundreds of programs, that we focus it clearly in a
competitive way, with a lot of choice on the part of the recipients, in
an improved job training program.
Now, Mr. President, for those who would choose to say this plan
cannot be done, I merely suggest that they do not know Robert Dole.
They do not know these marvelous economists, full-blooded, true-blue
Americans, mainstream, but the best, who say the status quo of today is
not good enough. A status quo where real median household incomes are
worse than in 1990, where, for men and women who are employed full
time, average earnings are still coming down, not going up. That means,
contrary to the braggadocio of this administration about what kind of
jobs are coming on, that facts seem to indicate many of the new jobs
are cheap jobs, where the administration would suggest they are not.
That fact that I just gave you would indicate, since there are more
jobs but median real earnings are still coming down rather than up for
full-time workers, it would mean they are not getting better jobs, in
terms of the new entrants in this job market.
So, when you add all these up, I conclude--and since the issue was
raised on the floor today I thought I would give my version to whatever
Americans are listening and to whatever Senators truly care--I think it
can be done, I think we can do better than today's status quo.
Let me suggest, for those of us who have been trying to move this
huge battleship, the battleship of Federal expenditures, which turns
ever so slowly in this huge ocean of demands, of people wanting more
from their Government, it moves slowly. But for those of us who want to
continue the movement in the direction of balancing the budget, we can
say to those who will listen to us about the Dole plan: If we cannot do
it, we cannot prove balance, then we will not do the plan. If we cannot
prove balance, we will not have the tax cuts. If we cannot prove that
we know how to turn the expenditure ship in the direction of balance,
then obviously we will not carry out this plan.
I thank the Senate for the time, and I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. I have an agreement from the other side to have 5 more
minutes under my control of the time for the Senator from Texas.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor, and if I can find time later in the
afternoon, I will complete this.
Mr. COVERDELL. If I might, Mr. President, tell the Senator from New
Mexico that after her 5 minutes, it will go to a period of morning
business until 5 and there will be ample time.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if that
is----
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
Mr. WARNER. Could I be recognized for a period of time following the
distinguished Senator from Texas for a period not to exceed 5 minutes,
with the understanding that an equal amount of time should be offered
to Senator Bob Graham of Florida. The purpose for the Senator from
Virginia and the Senator from Florida is to introduce a bipartisan bill
for consideration by the next Congress.
[[Page S11511]]
Mr. COVERDELL. If I might respond to the Senator from Virginia, I am
going to ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes to be accorded to the
Senator from Texas, and then under----
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield and let me just
ask if he would consider letting Senator Domenici finish with 3 minutes
and then giving me my 5 minutes, and then I think perhaps Senator Byrd
is going to ask for some time. So we could work something out so that
everyone would have an opportunity with Senator Warner as well.
Mr. DOMENICI. Do not ask for me to have 3 minutes because I want to
use the regular order as best we can, and I need more than 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). The Senate is now in a period
of morning business.
Mr. COVERDELL. Let me ask unanimous consent that the hour of
controlled business under the Senator from Georgia be expanded 5
minutes--and we talked to the other side of the aisle--so the Senator
from Texas may finish her remarks. I will then ask unanimous consent
that the period for morning business be extended until the hour of 5
with statements limited to 5 minutes each, which I believe will accord
the Senators from Virginia and Florida their opportunity.
Mr. WARNER. And the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham.
Mr. COVERDELL. Yes. So I ask unanimous consent that the period I
control be expanded for 5 minutes and that that time be dedicated to
the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. And I shall not object, but I would like to be recognized
following the distinguished Senator from Virginia and the Senator from
Florida about whom he has referred. I would like then to be recognized
for such time as I may consume. That time would be probably 30 minutes,
35 minutes, or some such. I want to speak about the great senior
Senator from Georgia, who will be leaving us, and I do not want to be
cramped for time. But I will not overstay my welcome on the Senate
floor. So I would like to be recognized at that point for not to exceed
such time as I may consume, which probably will not be more than 30
minutes, but it could be 35.
Mr. COVERDELL. If I might respond to the Senator from West Virginia,
I do not know the purpose for which the leader asked for morning
business to be extended until 5.
I am advised that is certainly appropriate, and I am glad to accord
the Senator from West Virginia the appropriate time he is seeking.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, could the Chair restate the entire
unanimous-consent request as it applied to the Senator from Texas, the
Senator from Virginia, the Senator from Florida, and the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will ask the Senator from Georgia to
restate his unanimous-consent request.
Mr. COVERDELL. I am asking unanimous consent the time I control be
extended 5 minutes to accord the Senator from Texas 5 minutes;
following that unanimous consent, that 5 minutes be granted to the
Senator from Virginia, followed by the Senator from Florida for 5
minutes, and then to be followed by the Senator from West Virginia for
up to 30 minutes, and that the hour of morning business be extended
until the hour of 5:30 with statements limited to 5 minutes each.
Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do not want
to be limited to 30 minutes. But I will be very considerate of the
desires of others to speak.
Mr. COVERDELL. I would amend the unanimous consent to extend the
Senator of West Virginia the time that he needs, but that there be a
period of morning business to extend 30 minutes at the conclusion of
his remarks with statements limited by each Senator to up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I hope
not to, will the Senator from Georgia add at the end of the statement
by the Senator from West Virginia 20 minutes. I had 20 minutes earlier
in the day which was taken for another purpose. I would request 20
minutes at the conclusion of the Senator from West Virginia in morning
business.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object----
Mr. COVERDELL. I would have to check, I say to the Senator from
Florida. I would have to check with the leadership before I could agree
to that position. But I have agreed to the 5 minutes in accordance with
the Senator from Virginia. The Senator is included in that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection----
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will withdraw my objection at this time,
but I want to alert the Senate that at some time I will be reinitiating
my request for 20 minutes for purposes other than that which I am going
to speak in conjunction with my colleague and friend from Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
____________________