William Cohen

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Special Committee on Aging will hold a hearing on Thursday, May 23, 1996, at 9:30 a.m., in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The hearing will discuss encouraging return to work in the SSI and DI Programs. committee on energy and natural resources, subcommittee on parks, historic preservation and recreation

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I was interested in listening to the comments of my colleague from Illinois when he held up several press accounts that the North Koreans may be heading for starvation, and so the solution, I suppose, is to send food. Mr. President, the North Koreans would not be headed for starvation if they were spending less on weapons, less on putting half a million people right on the DMZ, having 1.2 million under arms, and doing more to grow food. So the word ought to be to the North Koreans, ``Make food, not war.'' Yet we are being called upon here for us to now feed the North Korean Army, because that is where the food is going, it is not going to feed the general population. Let me suggest to my friends who now would adopt the policy of send food and not prepare for defending South Korea that the North Koreans have not been responsive to date to these sorts of gestures. We have been sending them fuel oil so they would not go forward and build a nuclear weapons capability, and now we are being told they are on the verge of starving, so, therefore, we must cut back, we must in fact trim our procurement needs in order to accommodate the needs of the North Korean people whose military regime continues to spend them into bankruptcy. It was also suggested with a chart over there that there are some five countries that we spend more in defense than the total of these five countries. Well, which countries are they? Is it Russia? Is it China? Can anyone on the Senate floor tell me how much China spends on their military? Can you tell me how much Russia spends for its military? If any of you can even establish that in nominal terms? Would you like to compare what it costs the United States taxpayer to acquire a fighter aircraft from McDonnell Douglas versus the Chinese Government? Mr. President, there is no sense in trying to compare our expenditures to those of five countries when we cannot even identify the true costs of what those countries are spending. Assuming that you could, are we going to take the position in the Senate that we now would like to see the Japanese, for example, increase their defense spending so they can assume a greater responsibility in the field of seapower, and extend their seapower capabilities throughout that region? Do we want to see Germany, for example, have a much greater expenditure in defense to adopt much greater responsibility than they currently have? Are we willing to see that our stabilizing presence throughout the world should be diminished with all the consequences we have seen during the history of warfare during the 20th century; that every single time the United States has cut back and cut back and cut back we have seen the seeds of future wars sewn? Mr. President, it has been talked about here of how the peak of spending has gone down over the past 10 years. I have a chart here as well that can show very clearly how it has dropped significantly since 1985--70 percent. We think back to our capability in World War II. I ask this question frequently: How many ships did we have during World War II? Take a wild guess. Five thousand warships. How many are we headed for today? Three hundred forty-six. Bismarck indicated that there are only two things that do not change in life. One is history and the other is geography. We still are required to sail the same seas. We still are required to defend this country's interests globally. That has not changed. So we now are required to cover the globe with our sea power capability with 346 ships, not 5,000. Indeed, these 346 ships are more capable than those 5,000 we had in World War II, but we have to continue to modernize them. The fact is we are operating them at a greater operational tempo. They are wearing out faster. So what we are asking our young men and women to do is to sail in ships that are operating at a higher tempo, that are wearing out faster, that need replacement, need repairs, and we put their lives in jeopardy because we are cutting back and cutting back. We are doing so in contradiction to what the President promised. This is what is most ironic. For years, the administration has been telling us that the procurement budget is going to turn around. Just wait until next year. It is sort of like us in New England; we keep saying about the Red Sox: Next year we are going to get the pennant. Just wait one more year. That is precisely what has been said about the defense budget: Next year it is coming. We know it is going to an all-time low. It has to come up because we are sacrificing our qualitative edge here, folks, so it has to come up. Two years ago, Secretary Perry testified, and I am going to quote: We cannot sustain these low levels of procurement for long, and we are projecting an increase beginning next year, fiscal 1996. Mr. President, it did not happen. Last year, the Clinton administration said that the upturn in the procurement budget will begin next year, in 1996. Now they say that it is not going to happen. Last year, the administration said it was going to be requesting $44 billion in fiscal 1997 for procurement. We got the budget, and it was 38.9 for procurement. Now here we go again. The administration says the procurement upturn is going to start next year, fiscal 1998. So we were promised in 1996. They broke the promise. We were promised in 1997. They broke the promise. Now they say wait, just hold on; if we can just get to 1998, it will start to upturn. Mr. President, when is that going to happen? The reason we are here, the reason we have added this funding for our defense capability is that we cannot rely upon empty promises. We have had military adviser after military adviser come forward and say, ``Yes, we support the President's budget,'' but when pressed, ``Yes, we could use a little bit more.'' Let me just quote something else for you. Last fall, General Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, began banging the drum pretty loudly for a ramp up in procurement, saying we need to get the procurement budget up from this year's $42 billion to $60 billion by fiscal 1998. If you started reading the trade press accounts in the last couple of months, you would have seen a series of articles quoting General Shalikashvili and other senior officials saying maintaining our military edge depends on achieving $60 billion in procurement by fiscal 1998. Yet, the President's budget calls for procurement spending in 1998 essentially unchanged from this year and not reaching the $60 billion mark until after the turn of the century. So, all told, this year's budget calls for $26 billion less for procurement over the next 5 years than the Department of Defense said just last year that it needed. So, Mr. President, the reason we are here in opposition to this amendment is that we cannot afford to take the chance, we cannot afford to put the lives of our young men and women on the line with equipment that is wearing out, wearing down, and needs to be replaced. That equipment needs to be kept up to the best level that we can possibly maintain it. When the call comes to go to Bosnia, we are the ones who have to go over there with the best equipment. When the call came to send two aircraft carrier battle groups over to Taiwan, when the Chinese were threatening with missiles headed toward Taiwan's territory, we were the ones who sent two aircraft carrier groups over. Every time there is an emergency that affects our interests or that of our allies, we are the ones who are called upon. Do we send our people over with deficient equipment or marginal equipment? No, we say we send them with the best. We are not going to put our people in harm's way under circumstances that put them at a great disadvantage. Mr. President, we are asking that we reject this amendment. We think it is necessary to begin the procurement, not next year and not in fiscal 1998, but now. This is a commitment that was made by the Clinton administration 2 years ago. It was not kept. It was made again last year. It was not kept. This year we intend to see that the commitment is adhered to. Mr. President, I ask our colleagues to reject this amendment and that we do so with an overwhelming vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. COHEN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. COHEN. How much time does the Senator have?

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, it is curious, and I should say ``curiouser,'' as I sit in the Chamber and listen to this debate. My colleague from Iowa says we are going to throw good money after bad. Are you saying that we are throwing bad money at our systems? Is that what we tell the American people? Is that what we tell the men and women in the service, that we have been throwing bad money at them? Was it bad money that we spent on the stealth fighter aircraft that were able to take out the Iraqi defense in a matter of a few hours? Was it bad money that we spent on cruise missiles that we used to take out their weapon storage facilities? Was it wasted money we spent on Aegis destroyers, one of the most sophisticated systems that we have? General Powell did not fight the Soviets. He fought the Iraqis in 4 days. He fought them in 4 days because we had the strategy and the capability to take down their army in that period of time with limited loss of life. I daresay, if we want to quote from pages other than page 320 of General Powell's book --we should not engage in selective quotation because a quote taken out of context can be used as a pretext. I doubt very much whether General Powell is saying that the President's budget is adequate to meet the threats of the future. I have page after page of statements coming from our service Chiefs. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, ``I am very concerned our procurement accounts are not where I think they ought to be * * * [We] must commit ourselves to a sufficient procurement goal, a goal I judge to be approximately $60 billion annually.'' Chief of Staff of the Air Force: ``Unless we recapitalize, we are not going to be ready to meet the threats of the future.'' Chief of Staff of the Army, General Dennis Reimer: ``Further deferral of modernization will incur significant risk to future readiness.'' Adm. William Owens, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, ``I want to talk about procurement because I believe it is the crisis in the defense budget today,'' and on and on, page after page. These are the people who are seeking to throw good money after bad? Mr. President, it is really ironic, this whole debate. Last year we had the same thing, the same sort of approach. We have people coming up, supporting an amendment such as this--the same people who get on the floor here and vote to cut back on defense spending because they think it is too much, and yet they send us letters. I will not take the time or embarrass the Members who have sent these letters. Here is the compilation of all the letters Members sent to us, ``Please, we need more money for defense.'' I have talked to my colleague from Alaska. Mr. President, 60 percent of the people who wrote these letters here to the Defense Authorization Committee and the Appropriations Committee --their requests were complied with--they come on the floor and they vote against the spending. And they say, ``By the way, do you think you can help us out, we think we need more assistance in these systems?'' So the same people who are cutting the defense budget request here end up getting the systems funded so they can stand proudly on the floor and say, ``I am for lower defense but, my God, please help spend some more money for our projects.'' I think it is time we put an end to that. I think it is time we put an end to Members saying ``We need more for defense'' who then come to the floor and posture, saying, ``We are for lower defense spending, the cold war is over.'' I do not think there is anybody on the floor who can tell you what the threats are going to be in the future, 5 or 10 years out. We have to start procuring today to meet those threats as best we can. You cannot wait until the threat occurs and then decide you want to build more submarines or cruise missiles or aircraft or tanks. We have to start the procurement now. The President of the United States said we were going to increase procurement 2 years ago, in 1996. He did not do it. He broke that promise. He said wait until next year, 1997. He broke that promise, too. Now we are told just give us until 1998 and once again procurement will go on the upswing. It is our responsibility to listen to the service Chiefs, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the ones who are writing us saying, ``We can use more. Yes, we can live with this budget the President has submitted if we have to. We are on the ragged edge right now. We do not know what tomorrow will bring. You have to give us more assistance here. We need more assistance if you can give it to us.'' That is what they have been saying. For the first time this year, as compared to all other years where they have previously said we can live within the budget, now they are saying we could use a little bit more. They have been honest about it. They have come to us. I have a list some two pages long totaling $21.1 billion that the service Chiefs have indicated to us they could use for modernization and procurement accounts, funding that is needed to meet the future threats. Yet, sure, they will come up and swear, take an oath, and say, ``We can live with it if we have to. But we are telling you we need more.'' The Members who write to us saying give us more, they ought not come to the floor today and vote for this amendment and say we are going to vote to cut defense and then come back later and say we want our systems funded. Mr. President, I can tell you from this Member's point of view, I am going to see to it that all of those requests are denied and deleted, if that is the case, because they cannot have it both ways. You cannot say you want more for defense privately and get on the floor and say we are going to cut it publicly. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. COHEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. COHEN. I was just going to ask, my understanding was that the President went to California and said we needed more C-17's, not fewer. So we have people going out to the local districts, or States which are politically populous, and appealing for votes in the fall, saying, ``Gee, how can we help you? Can we keep that base open? We are not going to shut down a facility in Texas or California, we are going to keep it open,'' in order to purchase votes. I think the time has come for us to listen to what the service Chiefs and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are saying, I say to my colleague from Alaska: They need more not less. The President submitted a budget, and that budget has defined the national security needs. What the military people are really saying is, ``We're at the edge. We have to start ramping up on procurement. We should have done it 2 years ago. We don't need it next year; we need it now.'' I support what the Senator from Alaska is saying. We cannot afford to continue to do this. When my colleague from Massachusetts says what happens when we are spending more money than our friends from Germany, Japan, Italy, or all of our allies, when the 911 call goes out, are we going to send the British fleet to Taiwan? Are we going to send the Italian fleet or the German fleet? The fact of the matter is, we are the superpower. If we can change that, we can say, ``We don't want to be a stabilizing force in Europe or Asia.'' If that is the case, let us make that determination, but we ought not to do what we are doing now, and that is, constantly rob procurement in order to keep ready and then keep ready by overutilizing the ever-diminishing inventory that we have. We have to make procurement changes. The President is unwilling to do so in an election year, saying, ``Wait until next year; wait until I get by 1996; wait until 1997 or 1998.'' We cannot afford to do that unless we are willing to place our men and women in jeopardy.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Special Committee on Aging will hold a forum on Tuesday, May 14, 1996, at 10 a.m., in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The forum will discuss the shortage of geriatricians in the Nation's health care system. subcommittee on oversight and investigations

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following my remarks and those of Senator Bumpers and Senator Daschle.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 243, designating ``National Correctional Officers and Employees Week,'' and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was agreed to and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, last Sunday I had occasion to address a memorial service that was held for Senator Muskie at Bates College in Maine to comment about his life in the U.S. Senate and beyond when he served as Secretary of State. It was a very moving testimonial that highlighted his enormous accomplishments during a career of public service, including his time as Governor of Maine and his service here in the Senate and as Secretary of State. Last week, at about this time, I also had occasion to stand on the Senate floor and offer my condolences and a brief eulogy to Gayle Cory, a woman who had served Senator Muskie for some 21 years as a very trusted and loyal aide and then went on to serve his successor, Senator Mitchell, before she became head of the Senate post office. It seems, and I recall this so very well, when Vaclav Havel addressed a joint meeting of Congress, he made a statement about events that were taking place in the world. He said, ``Things have been happening so rapidly that we have little time to be astonished.'' That quote keeps coming back to me in terms of so many tragedies that occur in so rapid a period of time that we have very little time to grieve. When I first came here, I was joined by my colleague from Wyoming, Al Simpson. He told a story during one of our initial meetings about the time that he was advised that a very close friend of his had died. He sat down and penned a very personal letter to the wife of his close friend saying what an extraordinary human being he was and talking about some of the great times that they had together, and really expressing a wellspring of feeling about his relationship with that friend. He sent the letter off in the mail, and lo and behold, he was advised that the report was a mistake, that his friend actually had not died. He was desperate to call the wife of the friend and say, ``Please don't open the letter.'' The essence of the story was, from Senator Simpson at least, why do we wait so long, why do we wait so long to tell someone we love them? Why do we wait until it is too late? Why do we wait until they die to express all the eulogies? This statement of Al Simpson came to mind as I was reading a column by William Raspberry, dated April 15. I am going to read just a portion of it. Raspberry cites an article he had read, actually a letter to the editor of USA Today written by a man named Barry Harris of Montgomery, AL. He said: ``It's nice to see the tributes to the work of the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and all those who perished in the tragic events of a few days ago,'' he wrote. ``But I'm wondering why we didn't see such reporting before their untimely deaths. ``It seems that the media spend so much time on criticism of public servants that there's little time or space to comment on their accomplishments on behalf of our country. That is a disservice which only contributes to the climate of governmental cynicism perpetrated by primarily selfish forces.'' Indeed, I asked myself the same question. Why do we focus on all of the negative aspects of those who are willing to serve the public and then heap praise upon their caskets like so many flowers? We tend to judge our colleagues, and those who serve in the executive branch, on surface qualities. We talk about the quality of their clothes, the cars they may drive, their mannerisms, all the superficial aspects of an individual, without really touching upon the heart and soul of that individual. Washington can be a very cruel city. I recall something from the very first book I ever read about Washington, Allen Drury's novel ``Advise and Consent,'' which came out in the late 1950's. It struck me, as I recall the imagery created by Drury's wonderful pen. He said: They come, they stay, they make their mark, writing big or little on their times, in that strange, fantastic, fascinating land in which there are few absolute wrongs or absolute rights, few all-blacks or all-whites, few dead- certain positives that won't be changed tomorrow; their wonderful, mixed-up, blundering, stumbling, hopeful land in which evil men do good things and good men do evil in a way of life and government so complex and delicately balanced that only Americans can understand it and often they are baffled. That is a wonderful description of this city, a very tough and cruel city. As Vincent Foster, who committed suicide a few years ago, reminded us, many times Washington politics is such a blood sport. Mr. President, I say that there is a general decline in civility and common decency, not only in politics, but in many aspects of our lives today. I do not intend to take the time to try to catalog the words, the deeds that pollute our conscious moments with trash and filth and violence. I say this by way of a preface to a few comments I will make about Ron Brown who was a close friend. It has been nearly a month now since he and more than 30 people perished in that plane that was flying into Croatia to try to help rebuild and reconstruct that tortured land. We have, I think, forgotten the significance of what he meant to so many of us, what an extraordinary human being he was, what a life- enhancing spirit he possessed that he bestowed on anyone he came into contact with. I recently watched a program with my wife of a speech that he gave that took place on February 15 at Howard University. He spoke to what appeared to be an entirely black audience. He did not speak of hate or anger. He talked about hope and strength and courage, the will to overcome adversity, to know in advance that because racism is not a dead thing of the past, but alive and flourishing in so many overt and subtle ways, that those students would have to be twice as good as their competitors in order to win--twice as good--because we still hold on to the fiction that America has progressed to the point that society is race neutral, that it is colorblind. The fact is, Mr. President, that is a fiction. I picked up the Washington Post today, and I saw an item about a young woman who had moved into the home of her dreams in Philadelphia. She had to abandon that hope, which has turned into a nightmare, because she has received not only threats to her own safety, but threats to kill her two daughters. So she has given up the dream. A few weeks ago I saw in the Washington Post a story about a man in Chicago, a black man, who could not and would not drive a fancy car, a colorful car, or he would not dare to wear his beret because the moment he put the beret on or drove a red car, or something that was a sporty car, he was sure to be stopped and harassed. So he took the beret off, and he drove a plain, gray, dull ordinary-looking car with the hope that he would not be harassed by the local police officials. These are not extraordinary events. They happen every day, day in and day out, for those who do not happen to enjoy the benefit of being white in our society. I have been reading Colin Powell's work. He is someone who is looked upon with great admiration in this country. Many of us hope that he will reconsider his announced decision not to become involved in politics, at least for the foreseeable future. But in Powell's book ``My American Journey,'' he talks about the time when he was in high school and serving in ROTC. He went down to Fort Bragg in North Carolina. At the end of his 6 weeks--he said: . . . we fell out on the parade ground for presentation of honors. We were judged on course grades, rifle range scores, physical fitness, and demonstrated leadership. I was named ``Best Cadet, Company D.'' These are the words engraved on the desk set that was presented to me that day and that I still treasure. A student from Cornell, Adin B. Capron, was selected Best Cadet for the entire encampment. I came in second in that category. I was feeling marvelous about my honor. And then, the night before we left, as we were turning in our gear, a white supply sergeant took me aside. ``You want to know why you didn't get best cadet in camp?'' he said. I had not given it a thought. ``You think these Southern ROTC instructors are going to go back to their colleges and say the best kid here was a Negro?'' I was stunned more than angered by what he said. I came from a melting-pot community. I did not want to believe that my worth could be diminished by the color of my skin. Wasn't it possible that Cadet Capron was simply better than Cadet Powell? Then he goes on to talk about his experience upon leaving Fort Bragg, about not being able to go to the same church and sit in the same pew with his white colleagues, not being able to go into the same bathrooms in order to relieve himself on the way back, not being able to sit at the same counter to enjoy a meal, notwithstanding the fact that he might have to fight and die in the same trenches as his white colleagues. I want to conclude my comments about Colin Powell with a reference that he made and that I think applies to what I am talking about as far as Ron Brown is concerned. He said: Racism was still relatively new to me, and I had to find a way to cope psychologically. I began by identifying my priorities. I wanted, above all, to succeed at my Army career. I did not intend to give way to self-destructive rage, no matter how provoked. If people in the South insisted on living by crazy rules, then I would play the hand dealt me for now. If I was to be confined to one end of the playing field, then I was going to be a star on that part of the field. Nothing that happened off-post, none of the indignities, none of the injustices, was going to inhibit my performance. I was not going to let myself become emotionally crippled because I could not play on the whole field. I did not feel inferior, and I was not going to let anybody make me believe I was. I was not going to allow someone else's feelings about me to become my feelings about myself. Racism was not just a black problem. It was America's problem. And until the country solved it, I was not going to let bigotry make me a victim instead of a full human being. I occasionally felt hurt; I felt anger; but most of all I felt challenged, I'll show you! That is precisely what Ron Brown's life was all about. It is what he did his entire life--take any portion of the field and be the best in that field, be twice as good as the competition. He did it with grace and humor and a great sense of humanity. I recall when he was named to be the chairman of the DNC. I see my colleague from Arkansas who is here. When he was first proposed to be chairman of the Democratic National Committee, there were some people who worried about that. ``Wait a minute. We're going to name a black man to be chairman of the Democratic National Committee? What's going to happen to our white base in the South?'' But Ron Brown built bridges. There are some people in our country who want to put up walls around the country. Ron Brown's life was dedicated to seeking the best in people and not exploiting the worst. He possessed such an abundance of humanity that he took the time to read to Lee Atwater. When Lee Atwater was dying, it was Ron Brown who went beside his bed and read to him. How many of us have such a generosity of spirit? How many of us, day in and day out, would be capable of going to the other side, to people that we argue and debate with, challenge and fight with over political issues and in their time of torment and need take the time to read to someone who is dying? After all that he did to get Bill Clinton elected as President, I think he should have been given any choice of any Cabinet position, not because he was black but because he was the best. It did not happen. He was offered the position of Secretary of Commerce. He took what was offered to him and he did what? He did exactly what Colin Powell and so many other black Americans have done and had to do throughout history. He became the best on that portion of the field that he was allowed to play on. Mr. President, I know there are some who would like to abolish the Commerce Department as a symbol of our need to reduce the size of Government in Washington. I could perhaps understand it if Ron Brown were antibusiness. There might be some merit to that. But he was one of the most probusiness Secretaries of Commerce we have ever had. I do not recall our effort to dismantle the Department of Commerce when President Nixon was in office, President Ford, President Reagan, or President Bush. But apparently there is a need to dismantle some offices and agencies, and that is one we settle on. I do not understand it, but let me just say that I think that Ron Brown will be remembered as one of the finest Secretaries of Commerce we ever had. He was out there the day that he died promoting business on behalf of the United States of America. I conclude my remarks with a quote taken from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., something I think applies to Ron Brown: Through our great good fortune, in our youth our hearts were touched with fire. It was given to us to learn at the outset that life is a profound and passionate thing. While we are permitted to scorn nothing but indifference and do not pretend to undervalue the worldly rewards of ambition, we have seen with our own eyes, beyond and above the gold fields, the snowy heights of honor, and it is for us to bear the report to those who come after us. But, above all, we have learned that whether a man accepts from Fortune her spade, and will look downward and dig, or from Aspiration her axe and cord, and will scale the ice, the one and only success, which it is his to command is to bring to his work a mighty heart. Ron Brown in whatever capacity--as a lawyer, lobbyist, DNC chairman, Secretary of Commerce--brought to his work a mighty heart. While there are those in our society who would like to point to all the negatives, point to all the deficiencies or character flaws, or the superficial qualities, there are those of us here who believe that Ron Brown's humanity, his courage, his determination to succeed on that portion of the field that he was allowed to play on, brought to his work a mighty heart. I for one am going to miss him deeply.

Mr. COHEN

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

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I understand there is an amendment at the desk offered by Senators Moynihan and D'Amato. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 378, H.R. 1836.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the bill be deemed read a third time, passed, as amended, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 366, H.R. 1743, Calendar No. 367, H.R. 2243, and Calendar No. 375, S. 811, en bloc; further, I ask unanimous consent that reported amendments to the text, as may appear, be agreed to, the bills be deemed read a third time, passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc, and that any statements relating to these measures be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 345, H.R. 2064.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 12 noon on Monday, May 6; further, that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date; that no resolutions come over under the rule, that the call of the calendar be dispensed with; that the morning hour be deemed to have expired; and that there be a period for morning business until the hour of 3 p.m., with Senators to speak up to 5 minutes each, with the following Senators to speak for the designated times: Senator Daschle, or his designee, the first 90 minutes; Senator Coverdell, or his designee, the last 90 minutes.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, the Senate will conduct a period for morning business until 3 p.m. on Monday.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3 p.m. on Monday, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 2937, regarding the White House Travel Office.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, Senators are also reminded that a cloture motion was filed today on the White House travel bill. Under the provisions of rule XXII, all first-degree amendments must be filed with the clerk by 1 p.m. on Monday. Also, Senators should be aware that the cloture vote will occur at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, May 7. However, no rollcall votes will occur during Monday's session of the Senate. Mr. President, I hope the Senate can dispose of the Senate White House bill by the close of business on Tuesday. Also the Senate may be asked to consider any other legislative matter cleared for action.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open until 2:30 p.m. today in order for Senators to submit statements.