[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.

                          ____________________