Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will take but a few moments here so we can finish this bill. First, I want to congratulate the managers of the bill, Senator Packwood and Senator Moynihan. Mr. President, we start debate today on an issue that is important to many Americans across the country. H.R. 831 seeks to make permanent the deductibility of health care insurance costs for self-employed individuals. Since 1986, Congress has allowed the self-employed a 25-percent deduction for their health care insurance costs. Almost every year, we have had to extend the deduction, but we failed to extend it last year when it expired on December 31, 1993. We were told that we would address this matter in the health care reform debate. And we did address it. In some bills, including mine and Senator Packwood's, we sought to allow up to 100 percent dedication phased in over a period of time. But, in the end, we did nothing. None of the health care reform bills had enough support to pass last year, and so, here we are today again looking at this issue. H.R. 831 seeks to make this deduction permanent. We don't want to leave the 3.2 million tax filers in 1994, hanging on the edge of a cliff every year. And we do not want to tell them that although corporations can deduct 100 percent of their health care insurance costs, small businesses cannot. We decided 9 years ago that in order to make the playing field more equitable, we should allow small businesses to deduct their health care insurance costs. But we did not give them 100 percent, we gave them only 25 percent--one quarter of what corporations are allowed to deduct. Today, we seek to increase that amount permanently to 30 percent. And we must continue to fight for parity. In fact, many small businesses strongly believe that increasing the deductibility begins to solve the disparity between self-employed and incorporated businesses and will give even more individuals access to affordable health insurance. I agree when them. I have received many letters from various small business and agricultural associations supporting my efforts to increase the deduction even more than the 30 percent in the committee bill. Letters from: The National Federation of Independent Business, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Restaurant Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Corn Growers Association, the American Soybean Association, the Small Business Legislative Council, the National Small Business Unified, the National Association of Home Builders, the Healthcare Equity Action League [HEAL], Communicating for Health Consumers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Private Enterprise, and the Society of American Florists. I know that many in this Chamber share their belief--so much, in fact, that the minority leader and I have sent a letter to both the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to strongly consider raising the deductible percentage higher than 30 percent, but within the confines of the offsetting revenues. employee deduction I also share the concerns of many of my colleagues over the many employees who pay their own health insurance, but do not get to deduct any amount. There is no doubt, that these people deserve fair and equal treatment as well. I am hopeful that when we return to health care reform we will address this issue. Many believe that the health care reform issue is dead, but it is not. We still have people without insurance. We still have people who are denied insurance because of existing illness. We still have people who cannot change their jobs in fear of losing health insurance. To me, and many of my colleagues, health care reform is still very much alive, and the issue of taxation of employees who pay for their own health insurance, will be addressed. offsetting revenues In the Senate Finance Committee last week, under Chairman Packwood's leadership, we passed a bill that not only extended the deduction permanently, we raised the deductibility percentage to 30 percent. And we did so by repealing a Federal Communications Commission [FCC] program that I believe is not only ineffective, but costs the Federal Government billions of dollars. This program has gained notoriety in the newspapers in the recent months because one particular transaction could cost the Government in excess of $500 million. One company, 500 million dollars. The FCC, the agency that administers this program, does not know how much the entire program has cost the Government. And neither does the Treasury Department. The program has been in existence for 17 years, and yet we have no idea how much this has cost the Government. One of my distinguished colleagues on the Finance Committee said it right, ``If you are looking for the enemy, the enemy is us.'' And so, members of the Senate Finance Committee overwhelmingly repealed this program. the fcc's tax certificate program Congress, in 1943, gave the FCC authority to grant tax deferrals to owners of broadcast facilities who were forced to sell their properties to break up monopolies during World War II. Congress' intent was to, and I quote, ``Alleviate the burden of taxpayers who had been forced to sell their radio stations under difficult wartime circumstances.'' The FCC, in 1978, expanded the provision to give a tax preference to radio, television, and later cable broadcasters this policy, the FCC defines minorities as including ``Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians and Pacific Islanders.'' The greatest flaw in this program is that the economic benefit does not go to the minority buyer, the economic benefit goes to the seller. It is like a kickback. If you sell to me and not the other guy, I will give you a little extra something. And I will not be paying for it, the American taxpayer will. I do not understand it, and I do not understand why people would think this is benefiting minorities when the monetary gain is going to the seller. These are also million-dollar deals. These are tax breaks to millionaires. The average sales price for transactions in which tax certificates were granted is $3.5 million for radio, and $38 million for television. Although there is no data currently available for the cable industry, one of the transactions in the cable industry seeking to utilize the tax certificate, is $2.3 billion. effective date Some have tried to say that this bill's effective date is retroactive. And that this bill is crafted to target one particular transaction--the Viacom transaction. I disagree. Chairman Archer of the House Ways and Means Committee issued a press release on January 17 of this year entitled, ``Archer Announces Review of FCC Tax Provision,'' putting all FCC tax certificate transactions on notice. It reads, and I quote: The Committee on Ways and Means will undertake this review immediately to explore possible legislative changes to section 1071, including the possibility of repeal. Any changes to section 1072 may apply to transactions completed, or certificates issued by the FCC, on or after today, January 17, 1995. Two days later, on January 19, representatives from Viacom, House Ways and Means Committee, and the Joint Tax Committee met. And Viacom was fully apprised of the situation and the possible consequences on their transaction. Nevertheless, the parties in the Viacom transaction signed an asset purchase agreement the following day. and even then I do not believe it was not a binding contract. The purchase agreement is contingent upon the FCC granting a tax certificate. They filed a tax certificate application with the FCC on February 3, with full knowledge that Congress would be acting to repeal the program. On February 6, 1995, H.R. 831 was introduced, and reported by the Ways and Means Committee on February 8. The bill passed the House on February 21. This transaction is not a small one. This a $2.3 billion transaction. the parties involved are sophisticated players in the mergers and acquisitions world. A world where players are accustomed to reacting quickly. It is clear to me that the parties of this transaction were given reasonable expectation that the FCC tax certificate program would be repealed. And it is clear to met that they decided to sign their agreement regardless. And, remember, they did not file for an FCC tax certificate until February 3. Their agreement continues to be contingent upon a tax certificate being granted. turning tax breaks and loopholes for millionaires into health care for the ordinary citizen Let me be clear, if we do not pass this legislation today, then what we are doing is raising taxes for 3.2 million Americans. Make no mistake about it. If we do nothing today, then they will pay more in taxes this year than they did last year. What we are trying to do here today; what we will accomplish here today is taking a million dollar, unjustifiable tax break for millionaires, not minorities, and turn them into health care for ordinary Americans. Americans who really need it. Let me also remind everyone here that this bill passed the House of Representatives with an overhwelming majority vote of 388 to 44. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in honor of Greek Independence Day, a national day of celebration marking 174 years of freedom for the modern Greek people. The achievements of ancient Greece in art, architecture, science, mathematics, philosophy, drama, literature, and most importantly--democracy--have become legacies for succeeding ages to emulate. Modern Greece, born of these same roots, also has given much to the present day world and especially to the United States. Many Americans can trace their heritage back to the glory of Athens. Greek-American Dr. George Kotzias developed medicine to combat the scourge of Parkinson's disease. Maria Callas, the Brooklyn-born opera soprano, provided us a legacy of beautiful music. Young Pete Sampras reminds us of the important contribution the Greeks have made in the field of athletics as he continues his outstanding command of the game of tennis. Greek-Americans have also contributed to the might of America's business and industry showing true entrepreneurial spirit. In Operation Desert Storm, Lt. Gen. William ``Gus'' Pagonis, U.S. Army, retired, successfully commanded the most complex sea, land, and air mobilization executed by a military force since the Second World War. And, of course, in this body today are two of the most outstanding Greek-American citizens in this country, Senator Olympia Snowe and Senator Paul Sarbanes. On Monday, I will be visiting with a number of other Greek-American leaders to commemorate Greek Independence Day. Foremost among them will be his His Eminence Archbishop Iakovos, the spiritual leader of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America. On this day, it is important to remember that American democracy would not exist today had the Greeks not believed in the power of the people to govern. As Pericles said some 2,000 years ago, ``our constitution is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of the minority, but of the So as we honor the modern Greeks and their sons and daughters in America today, let me paraphrase Thomas Jefferson--we Americans are all indebted to the ancient Greeks for the light of democracy which led us out of the darkness of tyranny.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President. This week is National Ag Week. It is the one week of the year that we take time out to applaud America's farmers for what they give to us every week of the year. Undoubtedly, they are the most progressive, most efficient, and most productive in the world. American agriculture is an industry to be proud of. America exports more than 43 billion dollar's worth of food products every year--that is a trade surplus of $17 billion. Agriculture also employs more that 21 million Americans. But those numbers don't tell the whole story. Every day, Americans eat. So every day, we all depend on the American farmer. We expect the best from our farmers--and they deliver. We have a cheap, wholesome, safe, and dependable food supply. No doubt about it, we as consumers are getting a pretty good deal. Agriculture has made exciting advances this last year. Most important, GATT and NAFTA have opened up new trade opportunities for American agriculture. Finally, America's farmers will gain access to millions of new customers around the world. At home, Republicans are leading the charge to reduce the regulatory, paperwork, and tax burdens which depress the farmer's bottom line. As we work to rein in the Federal Government, we will focus on preserving the programs that advance American agriculture in the world market place. believe that 100 years from now, historians will look back and recognize this time as a turning point in the history of American agriculture. Both locally and globally, things are changing fast. Agriculture is now a global industry--an industry where American farmers will play an increasingly important role. The Census Bureau estimates that the world population will increase by 50 percent in the next 20 years. Today, 1 American farmer can feed 129 people. Tomorrow that farmer must feed more. America's farmers have already started preparing to meet these demands. Less than 100 years go, the first gasoline tractor was built. Now, farmers are using satellite technology to customize planting and fertilizer use. That increases yields, reduces costs, and benefits the environment. These are the types of innovative programs we should encourage in the 1995 farm bill. Mr. President, there is a saying in Kansas: If you do not eat, then do not worry about the farmer. So this week, National Ag Week, we recognize that each of us has a vested interest in the vitality of American agriculture. I look forward to working with my colleagues during this pivotal year to ensure that American agriculture remains a world leader in this new era.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. It may not be binding, but this is an understanding the two leaders had. We will just leave it at that. Mr. EXON. I think Senator Byrd could adequately defend himself on that.

Mr. DOLE. I hope we have a majority----

Mr. DOLE. I am certain he could.

Mr. DOLE. If it is pursued.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank both my colleague from Arizona and my colleague from Indiana. I have been watching at home on C-SPAN, while they have been here in the evening, the remarkable work they have been doing. I appreciate it very much. No one on this side has worked harder and longer than the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Indiana on what I think now is within reach. That is the good news. The good news is, while we may disagree on how to achieve it, I think it appears we are about ready to give the authority that should be provided. I guess the disagreement is really what constitutes a line- item veto. Our proposal would require certain items in appropriation, authorization, or tax bills to be enrolled as a separate act, clearly allowing the President to veto these items. And these vetoed measures are then available for consideration by Congress as any other vetoed measure is today. We can choose to override or not. In the case of the Daschle proposal, the distinguished Democrat leader, there are fast-track procedures for consideration of the President's proposals to rescind, but unlike our proposal, a simple majority can defeat the President's efforts. Is the Daschle proposal better than current law? Probably yes, on the margin, as it does require us to at least consider the rescission. But it also only takes a majority to defeat. In the case of our proposal, the President's action stands unless two-thirds of us overturn that exact decision up or down, yes or no. No confusion. I believe this is a much stronger test. Separate enrollment is not simple. I acknowledge that. But I believe we should give the President, be it this President or any other President, the opportunity to use this authority. If it is abused, if the executive branch takes the opportunity to subvert our intentions, we can remove this new authority as we have granted it. Of course, there is a sunset of the year 2000, so we have the time between now and then to see how the process works. Is our substitute perfect? Probably not. But I believe it is much stronger and moves us much further in the right direction. I hope we may defeat the Daschle proposal. Then I am assuming, according to my conversations with the Democratic leader, we will conclude action on this bill today. That is my understanding and the understanding of the Democratic leader, and I we can move to the self-employed tax measure and complete action on that tomorrow. Then, on Monday, move to the modified moratorium on regulations.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the long awaited moment has finally arrived. It has been a long time in coming, but it is welcome nonetheless. As with the balanced budget amendment, the line-item veto has the overwhelming support of the American people, and I hope it will receive the overwhelming support of the Senate. Those of us on the Republican side have supported giving the President the line-item veto for years. During the 1980's, opponents of the line-item veto used to say that Republicans supported it only because the President happened to be a Republican at that time. With passage of the measure we hope to dispel that myth once and for all. We believe that any President of the United States, as Chief Executive, should be given more power to reduce Federal spending. If we cannot control ourselves--maybe the Chief Executive can help. As Governor and as a candidate for President, President Clinton joined with 10 former Presidents and a great many Governors in calling for a line-item veto. We intend to give him that authority. Many in this body deserve our thanks for bringing us this far along. Former Senator Mack Mattingly of Georgia first suggested the idea of separate enrollment in 1985. The distinguished Senator from new Jersey, Mr. Bradley, had a similar interest. The distinguished Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats, The distinguished Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, and my distinguished friend from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, have worked tirelessly in support of legislation to give the President this additional authority. Each time the Senate has voted on the line-item veto, we have been able to garner a few more votes. Tonight we will hopefully have more than we need to ensure final passage. We are familiar with the issue. We have debated it and discussed it before and again at length this week. Our substitute was not perfect. The amendments offered by Senators Simon, Levin, Murkowski, and Abraham, have all served to improve the bill. I am sure there will be other issues to address in the conference but we are almost there. The status quo just wasn't working. We have all at some point in time had some special project or concern that we felt had to be included in a bill. All these small things added up and here we are today--out of control. Can we still add our special projects--yes, but it will truly be government in the sunshine. Those items will be front and center. We have the opportunity to propose--and the President has the opportunity to oppose. It may not be perfect--but it is the best chance we have got. Let us give it a try. If it does not work, we can change it. But first--let us try. I would just say, as the Senator from Indiana just indicated, it has been a long time coming. We are now going to have the vote. This measure may not be perfect, but I think it is an indication that we are serious about it and, again, I thank many of my colleagues, especially my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, and my colleague from Indiana, Senator Coats, for their untiring, ceaseless efforts over the past several years. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Indiana we have stubbed our toe on the balanced budget amendment. We sent the wrong message to the American people. They do not want business as usual. We had business as usual on the balanced budget amendment but that took 67 votes. I hope we will have many more than a majority on this important measure. So I suggest, as I have said--I know my colleagues would like to leave. This will be the last vote tonight. I remember back when Senator Mattingly from Georgia was here and we about separate enrollments at that time. The distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, had a similar interest. In any event, I think we have had some amendments adopted that have improved the bill. We will go to conference with the House. They have a somewhat different version in some respects, as far as separate enrollment is concerned. I think perhaps we can work this out. We are prepared, as we said, to give a Democratic President--I remember the days when we had Republican Presidents, we were always accused, on the other side: Oh, well, the Republicans want this for a Republican President. Now we are in the majority and we are prepared, nearly all of us on this side, to give this authority to a Democratic President, President Clinton, who sent me a letter today saying he supported this measure and asked that we move it as quickly as we can. I would also like to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--I think we have handled this matter expeditiously. It has not dragged on. We have not had a lot of extraneous amendments. I thank also the Democratic leader. Finally, I also thank my friend from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, who worked with Senator Stevens and Senator Coats and Senator McCain in sort of molding this compromise package, and also members of my staff and the various Senators' staffs who have worked so hard over the past 3 or 4 weeks. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOLE. I will only take 1 minute of my leader's time.

Mr. DOLE. If my colleague will yield, I think it is pretty hard to make an argument that we ought to exempt the judiciary. I know we have separation of powers, but we are all spending the taxpayers' money.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I happen to believe that we are going to have a to the arguments of the Senator from West Virginia. I agreed with him before he made his statement. I have already had a call from a friend of mine who is a Federal judge who said, ``Leave us out.'' Why not leave somebody else out? This is serious business, in my view, and if we are serious, everything has to be on the table from A to Z, with the exception of Social Security. Therefore, I am constrained to move to table the amendment of my colleague from Utah, my good friend--or former good friend--and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, since last November's elections we have pursued an ambitious program of reform to fundamentally change and improve the relationship between the Government and its citizens. No doubt about it, to the defenders of business as usual these are wrenching changes we propose: A balanced budget amendment; the line item veto; regulatory reform; and even the elimination of cabinet level departments. Each of these reforms has been opposed by those who do not understand that the American people have instructed us to rein in the Federal Government. But we will continue to fight for these reforms, and for the American people. Today, we add to these reforms, by confronting one of the most basic clashes between Government and individual liberty: The taking of private property for public uses. There is perhaps no greater foundation for a successful free society than private property. The American Revolution was fought in part because of the threat that tyranny posed to private property, whether it was taxation without representation, restraints on trade, or violation of home and hearth by British soldiers. Private property rights are the rights to enjoy the fruits of our labor and our ideas and thus enjoy a special place in the U.S. Constitution. Mr. President, one of the most basic of these protections is found in the fifth amendment to the Constitution; ``nor shall private property be taken for public use, with just compensation.'' As the Supreme Court has stated, this protection is about basic fairness: Preventing the Government ``from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens, which in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.'' The fifth amendment thus provides a balance between public need and individual liberty. Today, however, this balance is missing. A regulatory state that seems only to grow and grow--that is increasingly intrusive--has provided the means for a sustained assault on private property rights in America. It is our duty to ensure that we limit the arbitrary exercise of Government power and pursue worthwhile goals in ways that protect the rights of our citizens. Mr. President, I and my colleagues today are proud to introduce the Omnibus Property Rights Act of 1995. I want to especially commend my colleagues who worked hard to bring a lot of good Hatch should be particularly commended for his leadership of the working group that consisted of Senators Shelby, Nickles, Heflin, Craig, Gramm, Lott, Thomas, Brown, Kyl, and Abraham. Mr. President, the Omnibus Property Rights Act of 1995 would accomplish four major objectives: First, it would require the Federal Government to compensate property owners if Government action reduces the value of property by one-third; Second, it would provide for alternative dispute resolution procedures and clarify court jurisdiction for takings claims; Third, it would require Federal agencies responsible for Endangered Species Act and section 404 of the Clean Water Act to provide for administrative procedures to address takings claims; and Fourth, it would require agencies to perform a takings impact analysis of regulations, and ensure that agencies select the regulatory alternative that minimizes the taking of private property. Mr. President, these are sweeping reforms. But it is important to point out that our reforms do more than provide that just compensation is paid in proper circumstances. The real test is to minimize the number of takings that occur in the first instance. We need to ensure that when we pursue otherwise laudable goals, that we do so in ways that allow the Government to take private property only as a last resort, and when it is necessary to do so, to insist that just compensation is paid to the property owner. The Omnibus Property Rights Act of 1995 accomplishes these goals, and I intend to bring this bill to the floor as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE. Let me indicate the list which I will send to the desk: One amendment by Senator Bingaman, two amendments by Senator Byrd, two by Senator Daschle, one amendment by Senator Murray, one amendment by Senator Exon, one amendment by Senator Glenn, one amendment by Senator Levin, one amendment by Senator Dole, one amendment by Senator Abraham, one amendment by Senator Murkowski, one amendment by Senator Hatch, one amendment by Senator D'Amato. These are relevant amendments. One is a substitute, others relate to authorized programs or exemptions, and one is a fencing amendment. We can provide further details if any of our colleagues want details on the amendments. Senators whose cooperation was important in receiving this agreement. We started out with a large double-digit list and we are now down to virtually a single-digit list with as many Republican as Democratic amendments. I am very hopeful that we can work through these amendments. For the information of colleagues, I intend to offer our substitute this evening, and hope we can have a good debate on that. I am sure we can work through many of these, even with time agreements, but I do appreciate the accommodation by many Senators. I appreciated having the opportunity to work through this agreement with the majority leader. I think this will allow Members to do what we have indicated we would like to do, and that is reach final passage this week. I appreciate the cooperation of all Senators, and I look forward to the remaining debate on the amendments that have just been listed.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motions on the majority leader's amendment be vitiated; that the following be the only first-degree amendments remaining in order to either S. 4 or to Senator Dole's amendment; that they be subject to relevant second-degree amendments following a failed tabling motion; that all amendments on this list must be offered by 10 a.m., Thursday, March 23; that upon the disposition of these amendments, Senator Dole's substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, be agreed to; that the bill be read a third time, and at that time there be 2 hours of debate under Senator Byrd's control; and that upon the conclusion or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on final passage of S. 4, as amended, with the preceding all occurring without any intervening action or debate, and that no motion to recommit be in order.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, for his cooperation. I think he is correct. I think it is in a condition now where it can be passed, maybe late tomorrow night if not sometime early Friday. I would hope following disposition, as I have not yet discussed it with the Democratic leader, one thing we have to do is the self- employed tax matter. Maybe we could start on that Friday. I will discuss that with the minority leader later. I asked Senator Packwood to check with Senator Moynihan to see if they would be available on Friday. I would ask my colleagues if they have amendments, certainly, this would be a good time to offer amendments because the Democratic leader has indicated later today he will offer the substitute. I urge my colleagues on either side of the aisle if they have amendments, I am certain that the managers would be happy to engage them in debate. Perhaps we can dispose of four or five additional amendments before late afternoon.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the numbers are now in for the trade deficit for January, and they are not good. In fact, we set a new deficit record for a single month. The trade deficit surged over 68 percent, to a highest ever mark of $12.2 billion. Mr. President, I never have met two economists who agree on everything. Some say you should not pay too much attention to trade deficit numbers. But most economists will tell you that continuously rising deficits in merchandise and services trade, year upon year, are unsustainable. Last year's overall merchandise trade deficit reached a record high $166 billion. The figures just released for January of this year indicate that the growth is not slowing. The growth in our trade deficit is in fact accelerating. This is deeply troubling. Mr. President, the soaring trade deficit is not just a matter of the volume of imports from abroad. A ballooning trade deficit affects the strength of the dollar, interest rates, the stock and bond markets, and the long-term attractiveness of the U.S. as a destination for investment. In other words, it threatens the standard of living of every American. Despite the potential enormity of this problem, the administration has yet to focus on it as a real threat to working Americans. I am reminded that in the months and weeks leading up to the Mexico crisis, it seemed that no one in the administration was minding the store. We do not yet know the full extent of the fallout from that catastrophe. Mr. President, I hope we are not today headed down the same road with regard to our growing trade deficit. I hope those in the administration charged with watchfulness are not asleep a the witch. Mr. President, we must not place our economic stability at risk. We must not allow warning signs to go unheeded. No single month's figures are conclusive, but when the bad numbers pile up month after month, they must not be ignored.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DOLE. Is the Senator going to send the amendment to the desk?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we may have an opportunity overnight to go back and shorten the list some. I cannot believe there are 37--34 amendments on that side of the aisle. First there were 40; then they reduced it to 34. I cannot believe all those amendments. I think there may be some legitimate amendments. There are probably a half dozen, but I do not think there are 34. Maybe we can come back and take another look. We now have three amendments or four amendments on this side of the aisle. The important thing is, it is not just this legislation. We took 4 or 5 weeks on the balanced budget amendment. We listened to--everybody got to offer their Social Security amendment on the other side. They tried to make that the issue. Many people who voted for the balanced budget amendment last year, the identical measure, stood right here and voted no this year. There were a couple of minor changes. We do not want to go through that process again. You are either for or you are against a line-item veto, and we ought to find out. Those who are for it on both sides--not everybody is for it on this side. But those who are for it on both sides, I think, would want us to move ahead and get on to the next piece of legislation if, in fact, we are going to have a recess, which would come when, if it happens? April 7. But there are some things we need to do. I understand today there is some treaty the administration wants us to do that may take some time. So we are trying to accommodate the administration. In fact, the line-item veto is something the President says he is for. He said today at the White House they did not mind these separate enrollments. They have a lot of pens at the White House. They make good souvenirs. If there are a lot of enrollments, they could have a lot of signing ceremonies. That is what, in effect, Mr. McCurry said, the President's press spokesman, I think, on that line-item veto. So we would be happy to work with the leader overnight. But I say to the Senator from Illinois, if he wants to offer the amendment, he certainly has every right. If somebody else wants to offer an amendment, Senator McCain said he would stay here until 8, 9, 10 o'clock, so we could stack some of those votes if they are not subject to second-degree amendments and have those votes tomorrow morning. We do not want to keep anybody from offering amendments. I just do not want to try to do this this evening.

Mr. DOLE. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. I do not object to an amendment being offered; there just will not be any vote tonight if the Senator from Illinois would like to offer an amendment, if somebody else would like to offer another amendment.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I just want to make an announcement to my colleagues on both sides to know what the program is for the remainder of the evening. The distinguished Democratic leader has given me a list of potential amendments which numbers 33 on that side, 4 on this side, for a total of 37, and I am not in a position to say that is an agreement that we would want to agree to. So I would just suggest tonight, if somebody wants to debate the bill, it is all right to have the debate, but we are not going to take up any amendments tonight. And then I will meet with our leadership tomorrow morning on this proposal. I do not see how we are going to complete 37 amendments between now and Friday morning. Many will probably be the same amendment we have had time after time after time in an effort to delay and delay and delay action on a bill that ought to be passed around here in 2 or 3 days. It is something we debated 7 times in the past 8 years. But I know Members have a right in the Senate to offer all the amendments they want. And if we cannot get cloture, why, I assume they can offer all the amendments they want. But I do not think it would be in the interest of anybody to start off and suggest we are going to finish by Friday when we have 37 amendments with no time agreement on a single amendment. It is the same thing we have done all year long--throw in all the amendments you can think of, clean out the garbage can, whatever, and then put them on a list and say take it or leave it. My view at this time is to leave it. If anybody wants to make speeches on the bill or on any amendment tonight, there will be no disposition of any amendment tonight.