Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. It is really not my purpose today to criticize the 104th Congress. I have been a long-time advocate of congressional reform, and I think a number of important reforms have been undertaken and at least debated and discussed in this Congress. For the first time in my experience in Congress, we have actually addressed in a serious manner some of the reforms that I think the American people have advocated and that many of us who have studied the institution believe are necessary to respond to a more effective and efficient means of doing business. We have finally applied those laws and regulations that we impose on others to ourselves. I think that alone will bring about a fairly dramatic way in which we analyze and review those laws, because for too long, we have followed the unconscionable practice of saying, ``It is good enough for you but not good enough for us.'' We have also passed the line-item veto, returning accountability to the budget process, an extraordinary transfer, voluntary transfer of authority and power from the Congress to the executive branch in recognition of our inability to grasp and get ahold of necessary spending limitations in order to be responsive to the principle of not spending more than we take in or ask from the people who we represent. We have not only paid lip service to a balanced budget, but this Congress passed what I think was the most courageous budget in a generation, which, unfortunately, the President vetoed. Some may argue that this issue of term limits is now less urgent or even unnecessary given these changes that we have made. But I argue that this is not the case. We have learned that changes in our laws must be accompanied by changes in the procedures of our institutions if change is to be meaningful and if it is to be lasting. Term limits remain, in my opinion, the single most important reform that will restore this institution to a position of public trust, and the trust in this institution is near an all-time low. Mr. President, I believe that the most effective method for turning the tide of public cynicism toward Congress to a positive vein is to break the tie between careerism and power. Prior to the Civil War, it was the common conviction that the surest protection from an imperial Congress--we hear a lot of words about an imperial Presidency here--but the best protection from an imperial Congress--and we have had imperial Congresses--was a frequent rotation of office. Americans expected a Government of citizen legislators then, not career politicians. Though the principle was voluntary, it worked, because during the first half of the 19th century, between 40 and 50 percent of the Congress left office in every election. The theory is simple: Public servants will pass better laws, or perhaps no laws at all, when they expect to go home and live under the product of their work. One delegate to the American Constitutional Convention warned, ``By remaining in the seal of Government, they would acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those of their constituents.'' Mr. President, I am certainly not opposed to professionalism, but limits on a career would make the normal time-consuming, wasted business of reelection less urgent, because no amount of effort would guarantee job security. This would leave more time to the serious work of Congress, and strengthen the trust of this institution in the minds of the citizenry. In addition, term limits, by forcing representatives to have one foot in the real world, might help restore their ability to empathize and their capacity for outrage. A story about a former Senator George McGovern, I think, is instructive here. After retiring from public life, he opened an inn in Connecticut, a lifetime dream of his. After covering startup costs, meeting payroll, complying with regulations, and the general ups and downs in the free market, the inn, unfortunately, went belly up. His comment on these events is instructive, and I quote him: I wish someone had told me about the problems of running a business. I have to pay taxes, meet payroll. I wish I had a better sense of what it took to do that while I was in Washington. And, therefore, we are back to the concept of citizen legislator. Those who have had one foot in the real world, those who have experienced the problems of meeting a payroll, running a business, performing in a profession, being apart from the governmental process, have learned lessons that are invaluable when they give to public service and bring that experience with them. Term limits serve two very important purposes: They rotate politicians back into the private sector to labor under the results of their work, and they create more opportunity for people of broad experience to come to Washington with the practical knowledge and innovative ideas in the private sector, assuring that our laws pass the reality check. We need public servants connected to their community by experience, not just by sympathy. Do we risk losing the contributions of some very fine people? Without question, we do. However, as John Taylor said in 1814: ``More talent is lost on long contrivances in office than by a system of rotation.'' The hard fact is that our greatest problem is not the lack of talented men and women waiting in the ranks to take the place of those who leave; rather, it remains a surplus of entrenched power. Some have argued that term limits would vest too much power with congressional staff, and that is hardly true either. The average length of service for House staff is 5 years; for Senate staff, 5.7 years. This is hardly a problem. Further, when you have new Representatives and Senators who come to office, they generally bring their own people with them, rather than inherit an entrenched staff. Term limits would more likely limit the tenure of powerful staffers who would lose their long-time patrons. Others argue that term limits would restrict the public's choice. The Senator from North Dakota just argued that a few moments ago. I think just the opposite is true. By denying the American people the opportunity through their States and their State legislatures to ratify under the constitutional process what this Congress has done is a limitation on the power of people, not as the Senator from North Dakota said, term limits being a limitation. It is clearly a more democratic process to give the people the right to make this decision as to their elected representatives through a constitutional ratification process than for 100 people to stand here arrogantly and say, ``We're not going to give the people those choices. We're going to deny them that opportunity. And even though they exercise those powers through their State legislatures and impose those restrictions on us, we're going to draw an iron curtain across that process and say, `No, you cannot reach into the Federal level to impose that.' '' So I think it is just the opposite of what the Senator from North Dakota has said. Well over three-quarters of the American people have chosen term limits. Opinion polls show that constantly. Aside from the balanced budget amendment, which has always been denied to the American people, there is no other issue that has so much popular support. Only in Washington could an idea ensuring a rotation from office creating entirely new choices for office be seen as a limitation on the American people. It certainly is not seen that way by the people outside of Washington. It is an example, Mr. President, of the newspeak that has produced so much cynicism on the part of the American people toward their Government. This measure may not pass the Senate. As the past year has demonstrated, even with the revolutionary changes of the last election, the system continues to be weighted against change. We are now faced with a procedural process here where we need to obtain the 60 votes in order to just bring this issue to debate and to a vote. The vote that will be taken this afternoon at 3:45 is not a direct vote on the measure, it is simply a vote on whether or not we will go forward to examine the legislation, to offer amendments, to modify it, and then to bring it to a final vote, which appears we may not get to that point. We will, however, I believe, ultimately prevail in this battle. The question comes down to individuals. Will a candidate for Congress commit to limited terms even if it is not the law? Will those of us in the Congress make the commitment to limited terms even though it is not in the law? Mr. President, one of the first bills that I introduced in the Congress when I was a Member of the House of Representatives was a term limits bill, a limitation of 12 years of service in the House, no more than six 2-year terms, and 12 years in the Senate, no more than two 6- year terms. I made an exemption in that legislation for those who served partial terms, appointed because of a death of a sitting Member or the resignation of a sitting Member. I thought it was fair for them to be able to fill out that term and then have the full term limit apply. I never realized that that would apply to me. A serendipitous act. I would call it an act of providence. I received an appointment to the Senate to fill the unexpired term of the recently resigned Senator from Indiana, Senator Quayle, who then became Vice President. I fulfilled that unexpired term. At the time I pledged to the people of Indiana that I was a strong advocate of term limits and felt, whether or not it was the law of the land, I should abide by it. And I pledged to the people of Indiana that I would not serve more than two full terms in the U.S. Senate. I hold to that pledge.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Well, it is difficult for me to determine how much opposition there will be to this amendment.

Mr. COATS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I appreciate the offer of the Senator from Massachusetts to work with us on this. I hardly think this needs additional work. First of all, it is important to understand that the bill itself addresses the issue that the Senator raised. In the definition of ``medically underserved person'' it says the term ``medically underserved person'' means a person who receives care in a health care facility substantially comparable to any of those designated in the federally-supported Health Centers Assistance Act as shall be determined in regulations promulgated by the Secretary. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has a sufficient amount of control by the promulgation of regulations to certify the types of facilities, and there is accountability. If you feel that you need to have a Federal agency or a Federal supervisor standing over the shoulder of a health care professional, a doctor who might be earning $200 or $300 an hour performing services but who volunteers his time for free, if you say we cannot trust this person to provide adequate medical care, I think we are selling the medical profession very, very short and we are crediting the Government with an ability to supervise that it does not have. We do not need a Government agency to oversee the efforts of nurses and doctors who volunteer their time--volunteer their time--to provide needed free medical services to underserved and low-income individuals. Again, we are not limiting the liability of anybody that is served here. We are not saying they cannot bring a claim. We are simply saying that claim, if brought and if successfully brought, will be paid for under the Federal Tort Claims Act and not paid for under the liability insurance of the professional. Why do we need to do that? We need to do that so we can encourage these people to provide the care. Why is it necessary for most? Because many of these people are retired and they are not able or in a position to continue to pay the exorbitant medical liability insurance, sometimes running $50,000, $60,000, or $80,000, depending on the specialty, in order to cover themselves for the volunteer service they get. The last thing we need is more Federal oversight in a program that does not need oversight.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the amendment I offer extends the Federal tort claim coverage to a health care professional if that health care professional volunteers his or her medical services to a medically underserved person. This is the same type of coverage--this is not new. We are not breaking new ground here. We extend that same type of Federal tort coverage for medical services provided in Indian health care facilities, in Federal community, migrant, homeless, and public housing health centers. What I am attempting to do here is extend it to those volunteer efforts--not paid--but volunteer efforts on the part of health care professionals if those medical services are provided to people from underserved areas that are deemed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as medically underserved or medically needy. We have built into this significant patient protection, indicating that the patient must receive notice before providing the care, and that the provider has agreed not to charge the party for any health care that is provided, and that the medical malpractice liability is shifted to the Federal Tort Claims Act. We are not in any way limiting the plaintiff's right to receive compensation for negligence or for a successful award in a suit. We are just simply shifting it from the provider's insurance coverage to the Federal Tort Claims Act. The provider is deemed, for the purposes of providing that voluntary service, an employee of the Federal Government and therefore covered under the act. The providers have to be licensed in the State in which the care is provided. The care must be covered under Medicaid in that State. In addition, the patient must receive the care in a health care facility that is substantially comparable in nature to the Federal migrant and community health centers that provide care to underserved populations. This is the protection that is needed in order to ensure that the care is provided in adequate facilities. So those facilities that are deemed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as federally certified-- if they are provided in substantially comparable facilities--the coverage will qualify. What we are attempting to do here is to provide a way that medical personnel can provide medical services to people who otherwise cannot afford them, people who are uninsured but where doctors and professionals and providers in the community come together and volunteer their time. We all know the horrendous cost of medical liability insurance. In many instances these medical providers cannot pay or do not choose to pay the additional liability cost. One of the primary reasons for this is that many of these individuals are retired. They are retired doctors or dentists or health care providers. So they do not have umbrella liability policies because they are not necessarily practicing on a full-time basis. But we want to encourage these individuals--as many of them already do--to engage in providing medical services. I think the amendment is pretty straightforward. There has been a question about the cost. It is interesting to note that when we provided this liability coverage for community health centers, the Congress set aside $10 million a year to cover potential liability costs. It is important to note that none of this money has been used in the 2 years that this has been in operation. People receiving free health care from professional providers generally are very grateful for the care and obviously are not looking to sue, yet we have protected their rights to do so if negligence occurs or if any liability occurs under the services. That is provided. It just simply is that the coverage comes under the Federal tort claims procedure rather than under the private insurance liability coverage of the medical provider. Again, the purpose here is to encourage the provision of free medical services to people who either live in underserved areas--and who of us do not represent a State that has underserved areas--or to those people of such income level that do not have insurance or do not have the personal wherewithal to purchase the medical service that is needed. This is widely supported. The American Medical Association supports this, the Catholic Health Association, the Christian Medical and Dental Society. Senators Frist and Kassebaum have been cosponsors of this bill. And it is supported by professionals throughout our States and throughout our communities. I have seen some marvelous examples of efforts where community medical professionals gather together, provide an acceptable clinic, volunteer their time and provide very needed services to people that need these free services in order to receive medical care. I hope that our colleagues could support this amendment. I thought this was something that we might be able to work out. We were not able to do that. I will address any questions that might be raised in opposition to this. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COATS. I have one, also.

Mr. COATS. We are not able to work that out, so we are going to have to have a vote on it.

Mr. COATS. There are one or two people that may want to speak on it. They are not on the floor. I do not intend to take all that long, 15 minutes or so, 10, 15 minutes.

Mr. COATS. I think we can do this then in a total of 15 minutes equally divided.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Madam President, the Congressional Budget Office reported that health care spending, rather than cost, is the major problem in U.S. health care. The report states that ``a major reason for high and rapidly rising health cost is the failure of the normal discipline of the marketplace to limit the quantity of services supplied.'' Today, nearly 80 percent of medical expenses are paid by somebody other than the patients themselves. Out-of-pocket expenditures have declined from 60 percent of the Nation's total health bill in 1960 to 20 percent today. Since that time, the Government's share has doubled to 46 percent. This means that most health care expenditures in the United States today are paid for by someone other than the consumer of health care-- by the Government or by insurance carriers. Unlike any other purchase, when Americans receive medical care, they use someone else's money. Our health care system has effectively insulated Americans from the cost of care. There is little incentive to spend wisely. There is no need to look for the best buy for the health care dollar. Six years ago, I introduced the first MSA legislation in the Senate. My plan provides a financial incentive for Americans to choose a healthy lifestyle and to be better consumers of health care. Under my plan, employers provide an umbrella catastrophic policy and invest the rest of the money in a tax free account for each employee. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Finance Committee amendment which builds on these same principles. For example, the average employer spends $4,500 on health benefits for an employee. Under the typical MSA, an employer would buy a catastrophic policy--with a $3,000 deductible--at an average cost of $1,500. The remaining $3,000 would be given to the employee to cover out-of-pocket medical expenses. Whatever is unused would be given to the employee. We would provide a financial incentive both to stay healthy and to shop for bargains in the system. I was discussing this idea with some constituents in Indianapolis. One woman told me she knew exactly what I was driving at. She called her local hospital to inquire how much a mammogram would cost. When told $300, she asked if they ever offered any sales. Sure enough, Mother's Day week, the screenings cost only $50. However, because her insurance covered the cost, she had no incentive to purchase the care at the reduced price. This sounds complicated, but the effect would be simple. People would be allowed to choose their own doctors, make their own health care decisions, have a financial incentive to live a healthier life, and control medical costs through increased competition. Medical savings accounts are working. People with these plans are looking for and finding bargains. And they are getting more preventative care from their doctors. Listen to a letter from one woman in Indiana: When the MSA account became an option at my company, I decided to try it with my family. For the last half of [the first year], our family will be receiving a refund for our unused portion. With five on our policy, this was a nice surprise. ``I was told I would be needing surgery performed in the near future. I have already made arrangements to pay our [catastrophic] deductible in full * * * the total surgeon's charge was $9,843. However, they have agreed to take off $3,797. With this account I have realized there is no set doctor's charge.'' This Indiana woman has become a wise consumer of health care services. She bargained and saved nearly $4,000 in surgery costs. She scrutinizes her bills and makes sure that she is getting what she pays for. Another Hoosier had this to say: ``The MSA plan has helped me become a more frugal shopper of health care for myself and my family. I now ask the doctor for generic prescriptions when available, and try to utilize our family doctors when available, instead of the more expensive immediate care centers.'' Another Indiana resident was surprised to learn that the price of treatment does vary depending on the status of her insurance. Treatment to an ear damaged in an auto accident was $900 through insurance, but only $200 since she paid out-of-pocket. A resident of Indianapolis writes, ``I am a single parent who receives no outside support. Therefore, it is very important for me to have insurance coverage for my 12-year-old daughter and I. I made the decision to try the medical savings account because although vision and dental expenses were not covered under the traditional plan, I would be able to use the MSA money for these expenses * * * both my daughter and I wear glasses. Both our prescriptions had changed this past year, therefore I incurred the cost of the exams along with the cost of new glasses. ``I did have necessary medical expenses last year that used all but $37 of my MSA fund. While I may have received less than others who had MSA's last year, I gained a great deal more than those who had the traditional plan. I had no out-of-pocket expenses and still had $37 come back to me. There was nothing to lose, and everything to gain.'' In addition to empowering people, medical savings accounts help control the costs of providing coverage for many companies. In Indiana, 81 percent of employees at Golden Rule Insurance elected the medical savings account option the first year it was offered. These workers got $468,000 in reimbursements from their MSA's. Not surprisingly, the next year, 90 percent of the employees selected the MSA option. Golden Rule benefited as well--the company saw no increase in health care costs for 2 straight years, with $734,000 refunded to employees, an average of $1,000 per employee. Dominion Resources has encouraged workers to opt for a high deductible plan and to place the monthly premium savings into a health account. Some 80 percent of Dominion's employees have selected this plan and the company has seen no increases in premiums since 1989. Knox Semiconductor in Rockport, ME, has experienced only one rate increase in the last 4 years under its Health-Wealth Program. Its president, John Marley, claims that the program saved his company more than $100,000 in 3 years--a significant savings for a small business. These savings are particularly impressive given the cost increases experienced by companies in conventional plans. The Clinton-Mitchell bill, for instance, claims it will achieve its major savings through encouraging HMO styled delivery of services. But even HMO costs are rising--13.6 percent a year between 1988 and 1992. In 1993, they jumped another 6.5 percent. MSA's could potentially achieve savings in another significant way. Not only would they unleash the collective bargaining power of the American consumer, but they could significantly reduce the administrative burden on our health care system. Less than 15 percent of all Americans spend $3,000 a year on medical care, and therefore the accumulated cost of paperwork processing are for small claims. By paying these bills directly, our health care system would realize significant savings in paperwork reduction and substantially reduce the $90 billion in administrative costs we spent each year. Forbes magazine has experimented with this concept. In order to cut down small claims, they give each employee an annual account of $1,200. For every dollar filed in medical claims, the employee loses $2 from the account. Employees can keep what is left in the account at the end of the year. This system obviously encourages employees to pay for small claims out-of-pocket. After the system was implemented, the paperwork on routine claims fell dramatically. The company's health costs fell by 17 percent in 1992 and by 12 percent the following year. We are paying a high price for our social and behavioral attitudes, our personal lifestyle choices. The United States pays $52 billion each year on illnesses related to smoking. Unhealthy eating habits contribute directly to 5 of the 10 leading causes of death in the Nation. Two out of three deaths in the United States can be linked to tobacco use, alcohol use and abuse, controllable high blood pressure, overeating, traumatic injury, and lack of preventative care. One man in Indiana commented, ``the plan has also given me a better outlook on staying healthy. It provides financial incentive for not over utilizing health care, but at the same time provides a way to cover the more routine expenses which one would incur at regular intervals. Getting a regular check up could help prevent more costly health care bills. Its nice to have an outlet to pay for expenses when you really should go to the doctor instead of waiting to the last minute because our deductible is not satisfied.'' The MSA is the only health reform plan that provides incentives to remain healthy. Indeed, the Kennedy bill entitles those at high risk of sexually transmitted disease more health care than it does to others not considered at risk. The Kennedy bill requires all Americans to pay for smoking cessation classes regardless of whether or not you smoke. So smokers get more care than nonsmokers under the Kennedy bill. Under the MSA, non-smokers, who likely will remain healthier than smokers, reap the rewards of their behavior. The Wall Street Journal recently editorialized, ``Most of the health bills before Congress remind us of Henry Ford's philosophy behind the Model-T car: ``You can have any color you want as long as its black.'' [but] health care reform that includes medical savings accounts would represent real consumer sovereignty; patient self-interest would be harnessed to keep costs down, and workers would build up tax-free health care funds for when they were between jobs. Health care security would be enhanced, but not at the cost of quality or freedom of choice.'' This Congress faces a fundamental choice. We can use the lessons of our experience--Americans empowered choose wisely--competition in the free market enhances quality and drives down costs--principles which guide reform through medical savings accounts. Medical savings accounts leave health care choices where they belong--in the hands of individuals. I urge my colleagues to support real reform--and to retain medical savings accounts. Amendment No. 3677 to Amendment No. 3676 (Purpose: To strike medical savings accounts)

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would just alert our fellow Senators that a rollcall vote will now occur at 5:45 p.m. today; that there will still be, after that vote, time remaining on this debate. I am not sure how much of that time will be used. I do know there are some requests for time, so Senators should also expect that there will be additional debate and a vote on final passage on this line-item veto conference report sometime this evening. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. We have no objection to that, Mr. President. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 5:45 this evening, Senator Domenici be recognized in order to make a motion to table the pending motion to recommit, and, prior to that, at 5 p.m. this evening, Senator Moynihan of New York be recognized to speak in opposition--in favor of the motion to recommit and in opposition to the bill on the floor, the time to be charged to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. COATS. Madam President, I thank my colleague for yielding. I appreciate the debate that we have had. It has been a long and difficult and sometimes tortuous road to this particular point. It was in the early or late 1800's that the first attempt to provide the line-item veto power to the executive branch was offered in the Congress. There have been 200 attempts subsequent to that. So it has been a long effort. The question was raised: Why would Congress cede its independence? Why would Congress cede its power of spending to the executive branch?--because it is an extraordinary effort; it is a historic effort. But I would say that the reason this is happening and the reason this will pass very shortly with a pretty substantial bipartisan vote is that there has been an extraordinary abuse of the power of spending. Despite every legislative effort and every promise and pledge on this floor, the egregious practice of blackmailing the President by attaching to otherwise necessary spending bills pork barrel projects, projects spending that does not have any relevance to the particular bill and would never probably stand the light of day in debate on that particular issue or receive a majority vote has been passed into law. I would just say in response to the Senator from Michigan that we have had constitutional lawyers pour over this legislation for years and years. The Chadha decision does not apply to what we have done here. Constitutional lawyers from each end of the spectrum and in between have told us that the legislation that we are presenting is constitutional. I would like to take this opportunity to thank some people for their extraordinary work on this. I acknowledge Senator Byrd's articulate and worthy opposition to this message throughout the years that we have been debating line-item veto. I want to thank Senator Domenici and Senator Stevens for helping us at a critical time. They were key to a strong, workable compromise on the issue. Senator Dole's leadership, his decision to make this happen, to break the impasse and achieve a compromise, was absolutely critical to our success. Particularly, it is a privilege for me to thank my friend and colleague, John McCain from Arizona, for his efforts in this regard. I deeply respect his determination. He has been tireless in his fight against the current system and the status quo. He has persevered in long odds, in the face of what often looked like a losing battle. We joined together 8 years ago in a commitment to pass a line-item veto, and it has been my privilege to partner with him in this effort. Madam President, this measure, in my opinion, is the most important Government reform that this Congress for many Congresses has addressed. Yes, a line-item veto will help reduce the deficit. Yes, a line-item veto will eliminate foolish waste. But our ultimate objective is different. Our current budget process is designed for deception. It requires the disinfectant of scrutiny and debate. When we send spending to the President that cannot be justified on its merits, it is attached more often than not to important appropriations bills. This has tended, first, to tie the President's hands, leaving him with a take-it-or-leave-it decision on the entire bill. Second, it is used as a means of obscuring spending in the shuffle of uncounted billions of dollars of appropriations. When we hide our excess behind a shield of vital legislation, our aim is plain. We do it to mask our wasteful spending by confusing the American taxpayer. We have created a system that avoids public ridicule only because it consciously attempts to keep our citizens from knowing how their money is spent. This is not a rational process. This is a deception. It is a trick, and it must stop. It is more than abuse of public money; it is a betrayal of public trust. But now we have an opportunity to end that abuse and restore that trust. We have a chance to pass legislative line-item veto in a form that has gained support from both parties and in both Houses of Congress. We have the power to make our goal of budget reform a reality. It is not all that we need to do, but it is a huge leap forward. The line-item veto is designed to confront our deficit and to save taxpayers' money. We have shaped this legislation to accomplish that purpose through a lockbox, ensuring that all the savings canceled by the President go forward toward deficit reduction. The line-item veto is not a budgetary trick. Unlike the appropriations possess that currently exists and has existed from the beginning of this legislation, nothing is taken off budget. No pay dates are altered. It is a substantive change aimed at discouraging budget waste by encouraging the kind of openness and conflict that enforces restraint. The goal is not to hand the Executive dominance in the budget process. The goal is the necessary nudge toward an equilibrium of budget influence strengthening vital checks on excess. But I think it does something more. I think the real benefit of the line-item veto is that it exposes a process that thrives on public deception. It is a lasting, meaningful reform--changing the very ground rules of the way this legislature has operated. We have reached a historic decision, a historic moment. The first line-item veto, as I said, was introduced 120 years ago, interestingly enough, by a Congressman from West Virginia, Charles Faulkner. It died then in committee, and since then nearly 200 line-item veto bills have been introduced, each one buried in committee, blocked by procedures or killed by filibusters. Today we have not been blocked. Today we have not been killed. And this issue will no longer be ignored or no longer be denied. The House and the Senate are in agreement. The President is in agreement. The public is in agreement. And now just one final vote remains. This measure is a milestone of reform. It is the first time that the Congress will voluntarily part with a form of power it has abused. That is the result of a public that no longer accepts our excesses and excuses. But it is also evidence of a new era in Congress, proof of a sea change in American politics. This vote will prove that Congress can overcome its own narrow institutional interests to serve the interests of the Nation. That will be something remarkable, something of which every Member who supports this legislation can rightfully be proud. With this vote, let us show the American people we are serious about changing the way this Congress works. Let us show them a legislative process conducted without deception and without the embarrassment we always feel when it is exposed. Let us show them that their tax money will no longer be wasted on favors for the few at the expense of the many. Let us show them that business as usual in Congress is finally and decisively over. Madam President, I yield the floor. I yield back any additional time that was yielded to me.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I, first of all, want to take this opportunity to express my respect for the Senator from West Virginia. We clearly are on different sides of this issue. He has been an articulate and zealous protector of the prerogatives and rights of this institution, and he has articulated those well, and I respect that. I also respect his unswerving allegiance and dedication to that proposition and know that it is very, very important, and it has been over the 8 years of debate on line-item veto, a great history lesson for this Senator.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that it has been cleared that we could move to a vote at 5:45, to have Senator Domenici recognized in order to make a motion to table the pending motion to recommit. I want to make sure the minority leader and Senator Byrd--if that is his understanding?

Mr. COATS. Will the Senator yield, if I could just respond to that? First of all, that is a high compliment and I am sure I speak for both Senator McCain and myself in thanking you for that. But, second, I leave here, after this vote, with the vivid picture in my mind that the Senator from West Virginia is still kicking in the churn on this issue, and that the final chapter probably is not written yet. I admire his tenacity also, and I think he has gained the respect of Senator McCain and I and everyone else for his diligence in presenting his case.

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

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from Mississippi whatever time he desires.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will debate the Presidio legislation on Monday. No rollcall votes will occur during Monday's session. Senators are expected to offer and debate their amendments to H.R. 1296 on Monday. Any votes ordered on those amendments will be stacked to occur during Tuesday's session.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate disagree to the amendments of the House, agree to the request for a conference, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on S. 735, a bill to prevent and punish acts of terrorism, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 735) entitled ``An Act to prevent and punish acts of terrorism, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendments: Strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert: