Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. DOLE. That is all right. Whatever you need.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will make a motion here in a moment to have the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair. I would also indicate, though I did not raise the question last night about rule XIX, I think my colleague from West Virginia came close if not being in violation of rule XIX, which states: ``No Senator in debate shall directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct remotely unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.'' I would ask that--some of the ``tawdry'' references, ``sleazy'' references, in my view were uncalled for. This is a very important vote. I believe there are 66 votes for the amendment, Democrats and Republicans. We need 67. Or we need 66, if there are only 99 voting. I thought a lot about what procedure to follow after we recessed last evening. I thought about the hard work of the Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch; the Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon; and other Democrats and Republicans who have worked and worked and worked for months and months and weeks and weeks and days and days and hours and hours in an effort to gain the support of 67 of our colleagues. This must be bipartisan; there are only 53 Republicans. As I said last night, if you want to take a look at total nonpartisanship, take a look at Senator Simon. He is leaving the Senate. He can do most anything. If he had any political motives, I assume--you can say, in most cases, Members have political motives--but in this case you cannot. He feels strongly about the amendment. We feel strongly about protecting Social Security. We have made a number of suggestions to Members on the other side about protecting Social Security, but it is never quite enough, never quite enough, never quite enough. I must say, it seems to me to be in the interest--not in our interest--in the interest of the American people; 76 to 80 percent of the American people support the balanced budget amendment. And they could care less whether we voted last night or vote today or tomorrow or next week or the next week. They know the country is in danger of economic collapse unless we do something. The American people are very sophisticated. They listen to radio. They read the newspapers. They watch television. They watch C-SPAN. This is no time for retreat. This is a time, as far as this Senator is concerned, for all of us who believe in the balanced budget amendment on both sides of the aisle to try to find one more vote--not in some back room deal, as alleged last night by the Senator from West Virginia--but by a recognition that if we do nothing--it probably will not make any difference to us or our families, but what about the 80 percent of the American people out there who want us to balance the budget? They balance their budgets. They balance their budgets in their businesses and in their homes, and they do not understand this business-as-usual attitude in Washington. We are going to continue to try to find one vote. If we fail on that, then I, when the vote is cast, if it ends up 66, I will change my vote and I will enter a motion to reconsider. That motion to reconsider is not debatable. It can be called up any time by the leader, and I think sometime about next September might be appropriate to reconsider this whole issue. We do not want to do it too quickly, but maybe let it-- leave it out there a year. Let us see what happens as we get nearer the election and the American people are a little agitated at Congress, as they should be. I just suggest if anyone in this Chamber on either side of the aisle can find one more vote--or send someone on vacation, who might be on the other side--we need your help. The American people need your help. This is not a battle--this is a victory--victory for whom? Not for Bob Dole. Not for Paul Simon. Not for Larry Craig. Not for Orrin Hatch. Not for Jim Exon. This will be a victory for the people. That is what this is all about. Give America back to the people. Dust off the 10th amendment. Unless the power is reserved to the Federal Government, give it back to the States and give it back to the people. We are going to continue every way we can to make this happen. Mr. President, I move the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider the vote be laid upon the table.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 20, just received from the House.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, leaders' time was reserved?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate to my colleagues the first vote will be a 20-minute vote. All subsequent votes will be 10 minutes. It is my hope that it will not take 10 minutes on each vote. I urge my colleagues on both sides to stay on the floor. There will be 17, 18, 19, or 20 votes, and we can complete action on the votes, hopefully by 5 o'clock, if we all stay right here. There will not be time to go anywhere else. I urge my colleagues to stay on the floor. vote on motion to table amendment no. 274

Mr. DOLE. Let me caution all Members to stay on the floor. From now on the vote will end in 10 minutes regardless. Members have been cautioned to be on the floor. We would like to complete action. We have lost about 10 or 15 minutes waiting throughout the afternoon. That will not happen again. Ten minutes, that is it. vote on motion to table amendment no. 299

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I move that the Senate stand in recess until 10 a.m., Wednesday, March 1.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. No, I will not yield for a question. I know the Senator from West Virginia feels strongly about this amendment, and he has a right to feel strongly about it. It does not mean he is right. He might be wrong. We may be right. If we cannot determine that tonight or tomorrow night we will determine it the next time the voters have a chance to speak.

Mr. DOLE. Let me explain to my friend from West Virginia that we still think there is some chance of getting this resolved by tomorrow morning, because we could have 67 votes or maybe more. We have been on this now for 115 hours. I do not know how many days. Everybody has had a right to debate. We are up to the critical time of the vote. This Senator wants to make every effort he can to see if we can reach the 67 votes. If we fail, we will fail, and it will be 10 o'clock or perhaps noon tomorrow morning. Madam President, I renew the motion. 5 minutes before he makes that motion?

Mr. DOLE. I ask for 5 minutes to respond and then I will make the motion. This is probably, as I said in my statement, the most important vote we will cast around here, maybe in our careers. We do not take amending the Constitution lightly. But to suggest that somehow this is unprecedented, tawdry, whatever, in my view, is out of bounds. We have every right to use the rules to determine if we have the votes or if we can pick up votes, and I intend to do that. We have been on this amendment 115 hours, plus 20-some hours of quorum calls and votes. Nobody complained about that. What about the 80 percent of the American people? Do you think they care whether we vote at 7 o'clock or 7:30 or 10 o'clock in the morning, the 80 percent who want this passed? Do Members think they feel the way the Senator from West Virginia feels? Absolutely not. Now, we have some obligation to ourselves. Obviously, nobody is trying to put the arm on anybody around here. We have not made house calls. We have not knocked on the doors. We have gone in their offices. But we have good-faith negotiations going, and maybe they have helped. That is fine. If they have ended, there are still other options. So I just suggest, Madam President, this is an important vote. If I thought there was one more vote tomorrow morning or two more votes or three more votes next week, I would make every effort I could to secure those votes, just as the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has done time after time after time in this body. I think the sad spectacle is that we may lose this vote, whether it is tonight--it is not going to be tonight-- whether it is tomorrow or later, where people who voted for the amendment before their election, vote against it after their election. What are the American people to think? What are the American people to think about any Member in this body? They sent us a loud and clear message last November, and as I said, nobody knows what the precise message was, but generally, it was to rein in the Federal Government, to give power back to the people and back to the States. That is what this amendment does. So, in my view, by postponing this vote, we will attempt to reflect the will of 76 to 80 percent of the American people and not the will of 20 percent. We may fail this time. I quoted earlier statements of Jefferson and Washington who had a little knowledge about what the Founding Fathers had in mind and who suggested themselves that there might come a time we would have to amend the Constitution. We should not pile up a debt on the next generation as we continue to do. I want to commend, again, those who is worked on both sides of the aisle. This has been bipartisan, and it should be, and it still can be. I know the President is very strongly opposed to the balanced budget amendment. I know he has called Members. I know what happens when your President calls. We have gone through it on this side. It puts a lot of pressure on a Senator or a Member of Congress. We have tried to improve the conditions by accepting or agreeing to an amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn. I just hope that all Senators will think about this overnight. Somebody could decide to vote the other way. We take a gamble. We might lose a vote. But in my view the gamble is worth taking. The risk is worth taking. I know the Senator from West Virginia----

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I move that the Senate stand in recess until 10 a.m.----

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

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, for those who follow this debate, we have had 19 days of consideration. We have had 115 hours 54 minutes of debate. That does not include votes or quorum calls or morning business, where a lot of the morning business was directed at the balanced budget amendment. So we have had a lot of debate. I just say that for the Record for some who think maybe we have not been on this long enough. My view is we are down to about one vote--one vote. Maybe it is 68; maybe it is 66. I think we do stand at the crossroads in American history. I think this vote is one of the most important many of us will have cast in decades because now we have an opportunity to do it, and we have not had that opportunity before. In fact, this may be the single most important vote we cast in our careers. I will say at the outset, and I think the figures I quoted indicate, we do not take amending the Constitution lightly. This certainly has been considered at length. Everybody has had an opportunity to say just about everything they wanted to say. I think we also must understand that there was never a more serious time when Washington needed the discipline, when Congress needed the discipline, that the Constitution and only the Constitution can impose. We heard a lot of talk about laws that were passed, and we passed since 1969--the last time we passed a balanced Federal budget--we passed seven different laws containing balanced budget requirements. And despite all the speeches and the good intentions and everything else that went with it over the past quarter of a century, the Federal debt has grown each year and every year. Why is it so important to balance the budget? There are probably a lot of reasons that have been stated on this floor from people who oppose and people who support the balanced budget amendment. Oh, it is important to balance the budget and maybe it is even important to vote for the balanced budget amendment if you are in a tough race for reelection. But in 1969, the American taxpayers paid $12.7 billion for interest on the national debt. This year interest on the national debt will devour a staggering $234 billion, more than all the Government spent on agriculture, crime, crime fighting, veterans, space and technology, infrastructure, natural resources, the environment, education and training--all of that and more was spent for interest on the debt. We have gone through this debate where some are trying to scare America's senior citizens, but by doing what we hope we can do in about 20 minutes, by passing a constitutional amendment with 67 votes, we take the opposite view, that we are protecting the very programs that they try to scare seniors with--Medicare and Social Security. What they fail to mention is the national debt threatens every program. Every program is threatened--Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, agriculture, nutrition programs, you name it. If the debt continues to escalate, as it will, each year interest payments are going to be larger and larger and consume more and more of its share of the Federal dollar. According to President Clinton's budget, interest on the debt is going to consume 16 percent of every Federal dollar. And anyone who is still not convinced need look no further than President Clinton's recent budget, which essentially gave up on ever balancing the budget and ever balancing the Nation's books. In 1992, Candidate Clinton seized on the $292 billion deficit, the highest in history, and he campaigned against the deficit. He was successful. He agreed to cut it in half. Now, 2 years into his administration, his own budget abandons the pledge, predicting a deficit of $196.7 billion next year and roughly $200 billion a year through the year 2000. In each of the next 5 years, the amount the Federal Government collects in taxes is projected to rise, but spending will go up much more. The picture only gets worse in the next century when the deficit is projected to rise to $421 billion--$421 billion--by the year 2005. So we are going to double it, we are going to double it if we fail to take action in the next few moments. If there was any message last November--and different people heard different messages; some did not hear any message at all and some are here, and some will be voting. There was a revolution last November. The American people said, ``Stop. Stop. Wait a minute. We want less Government, we want to rein in Government, we want to dust off the 10th amendment, we want to return power to the States and power to the people, and one way to do that is to rein in Federal spending and not increase Federal taxes.'' So the American people--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, voters generally--sent us a message. I am not certain what the precise message was, but I think the general message was, as I stated, ``Rein in the Federal Government.'' I believe adoption of this amendment is a big step in that effort. If we are ever going to rein in the Federal Government, rein in spending, we need help. We do not have the will in this body to do it. Oh, I have heard all the speeches, and then I checked the voting records and they do not match. Oh, I hear speeches. I hear speeches at night when I cannot sleep. People on the Senate floor say all we have to do is make these tough decisions. But then when the tough decision comes, oh, that is too tough, or it is not tough enough, or any other excuse to duck. We cannot wait for statutory changes. We cannot count on them. They have not worked, as I said, since 1969. I think the American people want us to stand up to the special interests and they want us to do the right thing. Many say, oh, well this is the easy way out. You all vote for the balanced budget amendment. Then you go out and say, well, I voted for the balanced budget amendment. Then you continue to vote for all the spending programs. I do not think so. My view is, if we adopt this amendment and three- fourths of the States ratify it, it is going to fundamentally change the way we do business in the Congress and all over Washington. So this is an amendment whose time has come. Thomas Jefferson said in 1789: The question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves. Now, if you think about that for a moment, this was just 1 year after the new Constitution went into effect. Thomas Jefferson himself was pondering whether a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget was needed. So, Madam President, the time for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution has come. Since our first Constitution went into effect in 1788, a total of 27 amendments have been adopted. The first 10, commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, made the United States a model for the world by limiting the powers of Government and securing rights for individuals and States. The Bill of Rights was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the first Congress on September 25, 1789, and ratified by December 15, 1791. I think there is a common thread that runs through all the amendments Bill of Rights--there is a common thread. Most have either limited the power of Government or provided constitutional protection to groups of Americans. And I believe the balanced budget amendment would do both. By limiting the Federal Government's ability to borrow, it will help provide constitutional protection to future generations of Americans and those who are not adequately represented in our current system. Nobody has contacted me on behalf of the 5-year-olds or the 10-year- olds or the 15-year-olds about their future. Nobody is lobbying for them. They are waiting for us. I do not believe we can continue to mortgage America's future. If we continue current tax-and-spend policies, we are going to saddle that future generation with lifetime tax rates, effective rates of more than 80 percent. So if we want to take away representation of our children and our grandchildren, if we want to take away the discipline, if we want to have it one way in an election year and another way in the next year, then we can vote against the balanced budget amendment. As I look around the Chamber, I see Democrats and Republicans saying, wait a minute; it is time we act. This is a bipartisan effort. We need Democrats and Republicans to make this happen. It is not going to happen unless it is bipartisan. We also took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Well, I consider the rising debt and the interest rates to be sort of a domestic enemy, and I think that simple oath illustrates why the balanced budget amendment is so important. We have not been successful in the past. We have not balanced the budget in the past because the Federal budget never became a national priority, and if you want to make it a national priority, we adopt a balanced budget amendment and say we are going to have a balanced budget by the year 2002. That makes it clear to everyone in this body that balancing the budget is not only a national priority but also a constitutional duty and that every Senator will be sworn to uphold and defend this amendment to the Constitution. That is the way it works. That is the way it should work. So we have had a healthy debate, as I have said, of 115 hours, or 116 hours, plus a lot of other morning business hours. I certainly wish to commend my colleague, Senator Hatch, who has been on this floor day after day after day, and my colleague, Senator Craig, who every morning in my office has had a meeting with the group to work on the balanced budget amendment, trying to find out what we need to address, how we can pick up one more vote. And if anybody ever questioned anybody's motives, you cannot question the motives of the Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon. He has been for the balanced budget as long as I have known him. He can go any way he wants. He is not running again. This is not politics to Paul Simon. This is a commitment he has made to the people of Illinois and a commitment he has made to his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. So I appreciate the efforts made by my friend from Illinois. Certainly the Senator from West Virginia deserves our thanks, hopefully not to overdo that. He has made a great contribution to the debate. In fact, I have been saying around the country that Senator Byrd is the expert, and I say it with admiration; he is a master of the game. He also understands Roman history, at least he understands it better than the rest of us because we never question what he says about Roman history. I am trying to get C-SPAN to give college credit to those who watch it. And it would be deserved because the Senator from West Virginia does understand it, and certainly he has contributed to this debate. Then let me just have the last word. I think everybody has said out here from time to time that the Constitution is a living document, and that is why it includes article V, which outlines the process for proposing and ratifying constitutional amendments. The Founding Fathers did not make amending the Constitution easy, and the action we take today, if we succeed, is not the last word. And if we fail, it is not the last word, because the final word of whether or not there is going to be a balanced budget goes outside Washington, goes away from this body and out to our respective States. I will say to those who still maybe have not quite decided which way to go--there may be two or three of those, maybe four--maybe you are not quite certain, but certainly you have some confidence in your State legislature, wherever it may be. Why not give them a chance? It takes three-fourths of the States to ratify. Why not say that we have some confidence in the people who live in our respective States and deal on a daily basis with problems that affect our constituents, too, because the Founding Fathers said in the final analysis it is going to be determined by the people, by those who are closest to the people, and those are the men and women who serve in statehouses around the country. I think we ought to remember that as we vote. The Founding Fathers did not put the final authority in the hands of Congress; they put it in the people, members, men and women, State legislators who are closest to the people. So I remind my colleagues as we prepare to vote here of just a few facts. I think many Senators referred to these earlier. Depending upon which poll you use--and polls change from time to time--about 80 percent of the American people favor the balanced budget amendment. Now, maybe 80 percent are wrong and the 20 percent are right. It has happened in the past. But these polls have been consistent--71, 75, 78, 81, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent. Three hundred Members of the other body voted for a balanced budget amendment, 72 Democrats and 228 Republicans. They joined together to give us this historic opportunity. And I would state what every Member already knows, that adoption of this amendment, if it is adopted, is only the first step in securing our Nation's financial future. Whatever happens, we are going to have to make difficult choices. Republicans will begin work on a detailed 5-year plan to put the budget on a path of balance by the year 2002, and our plan will not raise taxes. Our plan will not touch Social Security. Everything else, from agriculture to zebra mussel research, will be on the table. So, Madam President, as George Washington reminded us in his farewell address: The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and alter their institutions of government. The time has come for us to exercise that right. So I would just say, let us get prepared for this fundamental change. It is going to come. If not tonight, it will come maybe next month or the next month or the next year. It is not going to be business as usual in Washington. So I just urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment--it will take 67 of us--and send it back to the States for ratification. Let those closest to the people then decide if we spelled out how we will reach the balanced budget amendment. Let us not take that judgment away from them. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, the Senator from South Dakota asked earlier for 1 minute, which I am prepared to allow.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, do I understand the Democratic leader retains the remainder of his time? Are there additional requests?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues the remarks of Commissioner George W. Haley, who was recently invited to speak at Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, TX, in observance of Black History Month. In his remarks, Commissioner Haley reminds us that the American experiment is indeed working today, despite all the divisions that beset our great Nation. Commissioner Haley's message is one of hope and optimism for the future. He understands that America is not perfect, but that injustice and imperfection should inspire us to work harder to ensure that the American dream can become a reality for all Americans. Commissioner Haley comes from a military family. During World War I, his father was wounded in the Argonne Forest. His brother Alex spent 20 years in the U.S. Coast Guard. His brother Julius is a Korean war veteran. And Commissioner Haley himself served his country as a member of the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II. We are proud of the Haley family, and we thank them for the important contributions they have made to our country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Commissioner Haley's remarks be reprinted in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, when President Clinton announced a financial package to aid Mexico in its current economic crisis, Speaker Gingrich and I announced our support. Mexico was, and is, of vital importance to the United States. In my view, we could not stand by and watch Mexico financially melt down if there were any realistic chance to help. Earlier this week, an agreement was signed between the United States and Mexico, and its full details were released to the public. I have analyzed it, with the help of staff, outside advisers, and other Senators. I find it somewhat surprising and, at its core, disappointing. My message should not be misinterpreted--I do want United States efforts to assist Mexico to work. I hope we can help Mexico achieve the financial stability that they so desperately need. However, I must reluctantly point out the shortcomings of the agreement reached this week. In my view, the basic mistake Mexico made last year was allowing events to get to the point where the only apparent choice was to devalue the peso. Perhaps the Government believed that a little devaluation would be a good thing. Common sense should have recognized that Mexico's decision to break its promise to the Mexican people to keep the peso stable against the dollar would precipitate a breech of trust--a stampede to get out of pesos and into dollars. The Treasury Department needs to be very careful in the use of funds from the exchange stabilization fund. For example, I am not convinced that thrusting the United States into the middle of a Mexican banking crisis is prudent or necessary. The primary focus of the stabilization plan is not aimed at reversing the fundamental mistake of devaluation--not now and not over time. The measures described in the agreement to firm up the price of the peso seem almost an afterthought. They do not address the problem of extinguishing the excess pesos that have been coming off the Mexican printing presses, even as recently as last week. The heart of the problem is restoring confidence in Mexican pledges by moving toward restoring the value of Mexico's currency, and I hope it is not too late. I hope that administration officials will still focus on the main target: extinguishing pesos and restoring confidence in the Mexican currency. This should be the first priority, not raising interest rates. It appears my concerns are shared by the markets. When it was first announced that the United States would help Mexico, the Mexican stock market went up and the peso strengthened. Yet when the exact terms of the deal were made public, the peso weakened and the stock market resumed its slide. In the coming days and weeks, Congress will examine many issues in the Mexico situation--what advice the administration gave, when officials knew about the devaluation, allegations of conflict of interest, and other issues. I am also working with the administration to send a group of Senators to Mexico in the near future to get a firsthand assessment of the situation. A central part of that assessment will be looking at whether the administration's proposed medicine will cure the disease.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, on February 16, Ambassador Madeleine Albright signed the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United States joined 175 other countries that have signed and/or ratified the Convention. The next step would be for the administration to send the Convention--and a statement of any reservations and understandings--to the Senate for our advice and consent. Mr. President, in the past several days, I have received thousands of calls from all over the country in opposition to this Convention. My office has not received one call for it. These contacts have raised many serious problems that need to be examined. They have raised questions about Articles 13, 14, and 15, which grant children the freedom of speech, thought, conscience, religion, association, and assembly. Could these articles be interpreted to limit the ability of parents to decide for themselves how best to raise their children? Should U.S. citizens be subject to some sort of international committee that enforces compliance with Article 28(2) which states: ``State Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child's human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention''? Under Article VI of the Constitution, Senate ratification of this treaty would make it the supreme law of the land. Would the Convention then supersede Federal and State laws? What would the effect of the Convention be on the tenth amendment? Is the Convention merely a symbolic exercise, or will it actually require the United States to take actions? These are sincere questions from sincere people. They deserve answers. Mr. President, I realize the original intent of the Convention was to protect children from such abuses as forced labor and to improve the situation for those children in many parts of the world. No doubt about it, many children around the world face unbearable and unacceptable conditions every day. And for these children, a properly crafted document could provide some much needed relief. However, I also believe we in the United States have made significant progress in protecting the rights of the child through Federal, State, and local laws. These laws are better equipped to deal with the varying challenges posed by the issue of child rights. If there is one thing this election taught us, it is the need to get excessive government out of people's lives. This applies to the Federal government, and it certainly applies to the multilateral, quasi-government that is the U.N. I don't know the administration's timeable for sending the Convention to the Senate for advice and consent. When submitted, it will be referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations--where I am certain it will receive the careful review it deserves. However, until all the questions that thousands of Americans have about the Convention are satisfactorily answered, I will not support ratification of this Convention.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern for a lack of response by President Clinton to a recent report by the Department of Commerce. This report indicates our dependence on oil imports poses a threat to national security. This is not a new report; we have heard this before. What is new is the lack of action that has been taken by this administration. In response to this report, President Clinton has decided not to respond; he has chosen to continue on with the same energy policies that have put us at risk. Last year, our country imported more oil than it ever has before. Domestic production has fallen and American oil and gas workers are losing jobs. The administration should not ignore this plight. The Commerce Department study has little to say about stripper wells. That troubles me. Nationwide, there are more than 478,000 stripper wells. These stripper wells produce more than 1.4 million barrels a day. When foreign oil floods this country, the price of oil falls below the cost of operating most stripper wells. That's what has happened in the last quarter of 1993 and the first quarter of 1994. The Commerce Department concedes this saying, ``The impact of low prices has been especially severe on small producers operating stripper wells'' yet fails to provide a solution. Stripper wells serve an important role in this country and without them our dependency on foreign oil only increases. This administration has ignored the plight of the industry for some time now. Various proposals have been discussed with the President, but no action was taken. The failure to recognize the implications to national security as well as to the economy is unacceptable. There is a need to identify opportunities for assistance to the domestic oil and gas industry. For this reason, I have cosponsored legislation with Senator Nickles and Senator Inhofe which will address the needs of this industry. The bill proposes support for unnecessary burdens to the industry. I believe this legislation is necessary to begin the discussion on the status of the domestic oil and gas industry and in light of the recent lack of action by the administration, a review of our Nation's energy policies and approaches.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10:30 a.m, on Wednesday, February 22, 1995, that following the prayer, the journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and immediately following the prayer, the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Thomas, be recognized to read Washington's Farewell Address pursuant to the consent agreement of January 20, 1995. I further ask that immediately following the conclusion of the reading, the Senate immediately resume consideration of House Joint Resolution 1, the Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished Democratic leader. I think we worked out an arrangement that will be accommodating to many of the desires of our Members on both sides of the aisle with reference to amendments and the scheduling problems that we have on both sides of the aisle, in some cases. I would just state for the information of all of my colleagues, under the provisions of the agreement reached earlier, any Senator intending to offer an amendment or motion from the list must do so by 12 noon on Wednesday; also, Senators should be aware that although no further amendments will be in order after 3 p.m. on Friday, February 24, it is my intention not to have any rollcall votes on Friday, February 24th, or Monday, February 27th. It will be my intention to stack votes ordered on Friday, February 24, to occur at 2:15 on Tuesday--it will be Friday or Monday--to occur at 2:15 on Tuesday prior to the vote on final disposition of the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget.