Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have often said that the people of Kansas and Nebraska share a great deal in common besides a border. We share commonsense values. We share agricultural interests. We share a preference for public officials who say what they will do, and who do what they say. For the past 26 years--8 in the Governor's office, and 18 here in the Senate--one of Nebraska's preeminent public officials has been Jim Exon. A small businessman before he entered public service, Senator Exon has devoted a great deal of time to restoring fiscal responsibility to Government. Senator Exon practices what he preaches, regularly returning a substantial portion of his office allowance to the treasury. Senator Exon has also proposed a budget freeze, and did vote for the balanced budget amendment last year. And Senator Exon knows how much I regret his decision to now oppose that amendment. Senator Exon and I have disagreed on a variety of issues over the years, but with me--as with every other Senator--Jim Exon was always upfront and to the point. I join with all my colleagues in wishing Jim and Pat Exon the best as they return to the State they love so much and have served so well.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, during 1987 and 1988, I delivered a series of nearly 300 brief speeches on the Senate floor to commemorate the long history of this great institution. Each of these so-called Senate bicentennial minutes focused on a significant person, custom, or event associated with the Senate's development during its first two centuries. The inspiration for this project came from my fellow floor leader during that 100th Congress, Senator Robert C. Byrd. Beginning in 1980, Senator Byrd launched an unprecedented series of hour-long addresses to the Senate detailing this body's rich history. The 100-part series was completed in November 1989. In recognition of this extraordinary achievement, Congress agreed to publish these addresses in four richly illustrated volumes that today are universally known as ``Byrd's Senate History.'' Senator Byrd has not only written about the Senate's history, he has also made it. He has set so many major records that he can justly be considered the Cal Ripken and the Michael Jordan of the Senate. He has held more Senate party leadership offices than any other Member of either party. He has cast more rollcall votes than any Member in history--A record that he continues to break every day the Senate is in session. He has not missed a vote in 12 years, giving him a Senate career voting average of 99 percent. Finally, Robert Byrd is 1 of only 3 Senators in history--that is 3 of 1,827--to have been elected to 7 full 6-year terms. Not only has he broken all the records, he has also established an example for the rest of us and for the Nation of the best in Senatorial conduct. Robert Byrd's service to the Senate has been characterized by hard work, attention to detail, boundless energy, and intense loyalty. Mr. President, on October 21, 1988, I dedicated my final bicentennial minute to Senator Byrd and his remarkable contributions as a Senate leader. And now, on June 10, 1996, my next to last day here in the Senate, I want to repeat the words I said 8 years ago: The final chapter in Robert Byrd's history is not likely to be written for some time, yet it is safe to say that he has set a standard as a Senator, as a legislative leader, and as a statesman that will stand among the best as long as there is a Senate.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I look back on my years in the Senate, there are many Members to whom I am indebted for the friendship and support they have given me. I can think of no better friend, however, and no more reliable ally than Al Simpson. As all Members know, Al served for 10 years as Republican whip. And no doubt about it, he made being Republican leader a much easier job. Every time I needed help, every time there was work to be done, every time something was needed as soon as possible, Al Simpson was there, getting the job done, and doing it with the one of a kind sense of humor that is his trademark. Al Simpson is not only one of the wittiest men in Washington, he is also one of the most courageous. From immigration to entitlement reform, he has made a habit of tackling the toughest and most controversial of issues, calling them as he sees them, and letting the cards fall where they may. A few weeks back, much of Washington gathered to salute Al Simpson. Well, actually, much of Washington gathered to salute Al's wife, Ann. I regret that a delayed flight kept me from attending what by all reports was a wonderful evening. Speaker after speaker--Republicans and Democrats alike--rose to salute Al and Ann for all they have done for this institution and this city. The highlight of the event was when former President George Bush offered an emotional tribute to the man who he called his best friend in the Senate. While Al's retirement means that President Bush is gaining a fishing buddy, it means that the Senate is losing one of its finest. I have said before that Al Simpson embodies the American spirit many associate with the American cowboy. He is honest, independent, and he always judges people not by money or position--but by character. It was once written that ``out where the handclasp's a little stronger, out where the smile dwells a little longer, that is where the West begins.'' If that is the case, then the fact of the matter is that the West begins wherever Al Simpson is, because wherever he goes, he brings handclasps and smiles with him.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, during my more than 11 years as Republican leader, it has been my privilege to serve across the aisle from three Democrat leaders. Senator Byrd sat in the leader's chair for 4 of those years, Senator George Mitchell for 6, and Senator Tom Daschle for the past year and a half. When Senator Daschle became leader in January 1995, I said then that I had learned that the only way the Senate can run effectively is for the two leaders to have a relationship based on absolute trust. While Senator Daschle and I have disagreed on the vast majority of issues before the Senate, and while he used the Senate rules to the minority's full advantage--just as I did when I was in his position, our relationship has been one of trust and mutual respect. In fact, Senator Daschle has seemed to enjoy the job of minority leader so much, that I have told him one of my wishes on departing the Senate is that he will continue to serve as minority leader for many years to come. I have also told Senator Daschle that serving as a Senate leader when your party holds the While House is oftentimes more frustrating than serving as leader when the opposition party holds the White House. And it is my hope that he will experience those lower frustrations next January. But I want to thank Senator Daschle. We both come from the same part of the country, South Dakota and Kansas, where the weather can do us in, or do the farmers in, which does everybody else in. We both understand the importance of agriculture, but we also understand the importance of other issues that affect our colleagues, whether it is health care or whether it is the WIC Program or food stamps or other things that I worked on a long time ago with another Senator from South Dakota named George McGovern. So I just congratulate Senator Daschle for his great success as the Democrat leader. I thank him for the courtesies he and Linda have extended to me and Elizabeth over the past year and a half. And I wish him the best of luck--not everything he would wish, but the best of luck, particularly when it comes to his own personal work in the Senate and his own personal life. He does a good job. He works hard. We do not surprise each other. We trust each other; no games. And that is what makes the Senate work.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, this is Small Business Week, a time when we honor the entrepreneurs and risktakers who make this country great. It is also a good time for taking stock of what we are doing to enable this Nation's small businesses to grow and prosper--especially without the Federal Government standing in the way. The administration has portrayed itself as a friend of small business, claiming numerous accomplishments. Not surprisingly, those claims are hollow. The Senate and House Small Business Committees each had oversight hearings during the last few days. These hearings were intended to examine implementation of the small business agenda, all of which were part of the final recommendations of the 1995 White House Conference on Small Business. In almost every case, on issues of paramount importance to small business, the administration has opposed its agenda by either threatening to veto legislation, by actually vetoing legislation that gets to the President's desk, and by failing to implement the legislation he has signed into law. One example of the administration's tendency to talk but not to follow through is implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act. GAO reported yesterday that the administration had set a Government-wide goal of 10 percent reduction. EPA set a 25- percent reduction goal. The reality has been less than 1 percent reduction. The overall paperwork burden remains about the same: around 7 billion hours per year, a huge problem for small businesses which have real work to do. The Small Business Committee cited a number of legislative initiatives which we have tried to advance. In every case, the administration has stood in the way. The Small Business Committee's report card on these issues gives the administration a failing grade. In some cases, President Clinton actually vetoed legislation of great importance to small business. Like the Balanced Budget Act, or product liability, which limited the amount of punitive damages that may be assessed against small businesses, but where the administration sided with the trial lawyers. President Clinton vetoed legislation which would have increased the deduction for health insurance costs of the self-employed. He vetoed estate tax reform, which would have reduced the estate tax when a family-owned business passes from one generation to the next. Almost as bad, the administration has threatened to veto almost every bill small business needed. Regulatory reform, which required that every rule ensure that benefits justify costs, was veto- bait to the President. Ironically, these are requirements contained in President Clinton's own Executive order. But an Executive order lacks the enforceability of a statute, and apparently here, too, the administration did not have the courage of its convictions. Likewise, he has threatened to veto legislation that would ensure that farmers, small landowners, or any citizen would be entitled to the constitutional right of compensation if the Government takes his property. The property rights bill would also help small business get through the judicial quagmire they face now. President Clinton said he would veto OSHA reform legislation. He has threatened to veto the Team Act, which would allow managers and employees to work together to resolve workplace issues. Likewise, he has threatened to veto repeal of the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act, which makes it hard for many small businesses to participate in Federal contracts. All in all, the issues of great importance to small business have been blocked by this administration. But we will keep trying to clear the way for the real entrepreneurs who are the backbone of this Nation. We owe them all our thanks. But more importantly, we owe them real action, not just rhetoric.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would like to just make reference to a statement about D-day, which I should have made a few days ago. I want to at least have it in the Record before I leave. Mr. President, 52 years ago on June 6, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower made this dramatic announcement from London: People of Western Europe: A landing was made this morning on the coast of France by troops of the allied expeditionary force . . . the hour of your liberation is approaching. As Eisenhower made that announcement, 130,000 American and Allied troops under his command, stormed onto the beaches along the coast of Normandy, France. On that same day--June 6, 1944--another 23,000 British and American airborne forces were parachuted or taken by glider to secure critical inland areas. The courage and dedication exhibited by these soldiers on that day and in the weeks that followed led to the liberation of Europe and the defeat of fascism. As we mark the 52d anniversary of D-day, we must also look to the future, and remember the lessons that World War II taught us--and holds for us still. We learned that we cannot turn our backs on what happens in the rest of the world. We learned that we can never again allow our military to reach low levels of readiness and supplies. We learned that we cannot appease tyrants and despots. We learned the critical importance of American leadership. And, perhaps above all, we learned that while leadership may carry a heavy price--it is a price well worth paying. Mr. President, on this, my final D-day as a U.S. Senator, I would like to pay tribute to my colleagues who along with this Senator, served their country in World War II. That rollcall includes the names of: Senator Daniel Akaka, U.S. Army; Senator Dale Bumpers, U.S. Marine Corps; Senator John Chafee, U.S. Marine Corps; Senator James Exon, U.S. Army; Senator John Glenn, U.S. Marine Corps; Senator Mark Hatfield, U.S. Navy; Senator Howell Heflin, U.S. Marine Corps; Senator Jesse Helms, U.S. Marine Corps; Senator Ernest Hollings, U.S. Army; Senator Daniel Inouye, U.S. Army; Senator Frank Lautenberg, U.S. Army; Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, U.S. Navy Reserve; Senator Claiborne Pell, U.S. Coast Guard; Senator Bill Roth, U.S. Army; Senator Ted Stevens, U.S. Army Air Corps; Senator John Warner, U.S. Navy; and, of course, our colleague who landed a glider behind enemy lines on D-day, Senator Strom Thurmond, U.S. Army. Mr. President, on June 6, and all the days to follow, we can best honor those who risked and gave their lives for freedom by rededicating ourselves to the promise that President Reagan made on behalf of America on the beaches of Normandy 12 years ago: We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.

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 9 a.m., Tuesday, June 11; further, that immediately 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, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, there then be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each; I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Nickles be in control of the time between 10 and 12 noon, with the exception of 15 minutes between 11:30 and 11:45 be reserved for Senator Byrd, and 10 minutes be reserved between 11:45 and 11:55 for Senator Daschle, and, further, that the majority leader be recognized at the hour of 12 noon--approximately 12 noon--and the Senate then stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 immediately following those remarks.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, on Tuesday morning there will be a period of morning business during which the Senate will consider any legislative or executive items that can be cleared. Following the 2 hours under the control of Senator Nickles, the majority leader will be recognized. Following those remarks, the Senate will recess until the hour of 2:15 for the weekly policy conferences to meet. At 2:15, following the swearing in of Lieutenant Governor Frahm of Kansas as a U.S. Senator, the Senate will begin consideration of the budget conference report under the 10-hour time limitation. It is still hoped that much of the debate time will be yielded back so that the Senate may complete action during Tuesday's session of the Senate.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, this is the last time I will close the Senate. I will open the Senate tomorrow morning. I will make a statement sometime around noon tomorrow. But I want to thank all the staff and all my colleagues. And we will all be looking back at what happens in this Congress, what action was taken, what did we do for the American people, what did we do to the American people. I believe when the record is added up, the asset side, the debit side, the assets will far outweigh the debit side. We are on the right track. We are trying to reduce the role of Government. We are trying to balance the budget, which 83 percent of the American people think we should do. We failed to pass a balanced budget amendment by two votes-- two votes last week, and last March by one vote. That is not the end. And I hope that that will happen sometime, if not this year, next year. But whether it is welfare reform or Medicaid reform or trying to save Medicare, trying to change the tax system, to downsize the IRS, and a lot of things we think should be done, my view is the American people will believe we are on the right track, as long as they are told the truth, and as long as we keep our word. If we do not tell the truth, then you cannot fault the American people for being cynical about Congress and about those of us who have been honored and privileged to serve in the Congress. So I will keep an eye on all you people now that I am leaving. We will look back from time to time and see how Congress is responding. And I will be back from time to time as my party's nominee to visit with the leadership in the House and the Senate and many of my other friends in the Senate. So it has been a good ride. I have certainly enjoyed my time as leader of the Republican side, as the majority leader and the minority leader. But I must say, I enjoyed more being the majority leader. There is a thing about being in the majority that is a bit better than being in the minority, particularly when as Republicans we waited so long for it to happen, 40 years. I think the Democrats agree, 40 years is a long wait. But it happened. We are proud of it. And we are proud of America.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me also indicate to my colleagues that we have just completed a very successful meeting with Republican House Members and Republican Senators on health care reform. We have now reached agreement on the Republican side. Senator Kassebaum, Senator Roth, Congressman Archer, Congressman Hastert, Congressman Armey, the Speaker, myself, Congressman Kasich, and many others have been involved in this process. We believe that we have put together a good, solid, health reform bill that will help millions and millions of Americans. My only regret is that we cannot vote on it before I leave at 2 o'clock tomorrow. But we have the agreement. That is the important thing. I hope now that the Democrats, including the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, will take a hard look at what we have been able to put together. In our view it goes a long way in ensuring portability. It does a great deal for the self-employed. It does a great deal in making health care affordable. It also will start the MSA process, medical savings accounts, which have broad appeal in this country. We believe we are on the right track. So now it is up to the White House. It is up to the President. I hope the President will say this is good, this is close enough, maybe not everything he wanted. It is not everything we wanted, but that is the way it works when you go to conference. So the Republicans have agreed. Now we need to appoint conferees. Hopefully our Democratic colleagues will let us do that tomorrow. They refused to let us appoint conferees. But now since the Republicans have agreed--we are the majority party--I hope there will be an effort to come together. I want to thank particularly my colleague, Senator Kassebaum, and also Congressman Archer. They both had to give up--you cannot have everything. They both gave considerable amounts in the negotiations. But I think we reached a very good agreement, I mean good in the sense for the American people.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I thank the President pro tempore. Mr. President, today, there will be a period for morning business for 2 hours, and rollcall votes could occur today on executive or legislative items cleared for action. We would like to work out some of the nominees, at least clear some of the nominees on the Executive Calendar, including some of the judicial nominees. It has been suggested if that is not possible, we just start down the list one at a time. I am not certain that will happen today, but we will continue to work on it. On Monday, it is hoped the Senate can begin debate on the budget resolution conference report. There is a statutory 10-hour time limit. Hopefully, we can resolve that today and work out some agreement. I am not certain how much time it will take. It should not take 10 hours on a conference report. In any event, we will be in touch with our colleagues later sometime this morning. We are still working on health care. My view is we are very close. I am not certain what the White House view is, but I believe we have made a lot of progress. There has been a lot of give and take. Whether or not that will be complete by next Tuesday is problematical, but we are making progress and, hopefully, there can be some resolution. At least when it is taken up, it may have broad support. That may or may not be possible, but the Republicans will meet at 9:45 in my office, Republican conferees from the House and Senate. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. March 2, 1995 was the last time we were all here talking about the balanced budget amendment. It was a very historic vote. We fell one vote short. And so we might reconsider that vote I changed my vote to ``no'' and entered a motion to reconsider. That is what we are now doing. And I might confess that I thought-- when I first thought about bringing this vote up, I thought I had to be here to do that; that when I left, it could not be brought up again. But the Parliamentarian properly advised me that once the motion is entered anybody can call it up. So I can say to my colleagues when I made my resignation statement, I was under some little misapprehension about whether or not we could do this. But in any event, the point is I think it is the appropriate thing to do. There are fundamental differences. I know some are all over the lot on why they cannot vote for this. And some just do not believe it is the right thing to do. I understand that, and I do not question anybody's motives. We have all talked about a balanced budget, and everybody has one in their hip pocket. But we have not passed any. We have passed ours and I believe we voted on the Democrats. The President vetoed a balanced budget--another reason we need an amendment. We are working on a balanced budget through the legislative process now. In fact, I hope we can come to some conclusion on that and get it done before the week is out. There is a lot of talk in politics about children. There should be. They are the future. And what we do here will have a direct impact on children, on their hopes and their aspirations. I think today's vote certainly, talking about children, talking about their future, talking about the opportunities they may have, ties it all together. Just mentioning children does not do much for children. Passing a balanced budget amendment would. We would have a balanced budget. We would see interest rates drop. We would see Government responding not to every special interest group but to the balanced budget amendment where we would have to say, no, we cannot do it. And we would reorder some priorities around here. For all those who make speeches about the children and their future and crime and drugs and all the problems and all the temptations they have, here is an opportunity to stand up for children. I have believed in this for a long time. Back in 1971 I started to talk about a balanced budget amendment. And they are very difficult to put together. You can always find some reason to oppose it--do not include this, do not include that. So we will have this vote. We will lose, but we will have made the statement. That is the important thing. You made the statement. It will be back next year. Mr. President, perhaps no policy is more important to the economic future of all Americans and particularly to the future of our children than a balanced budget. And that's why I believe there may be no more important issue for the U.S. Senate than whether we will finally pass the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We take a lot of historical votes here in the Senate, but the vote on the balanced budget amendment is one of the most important in decades. It is a question of trust. Of whether we trust the people, of whether we trust the Constitution, of whether we trust the States. And most importantly, it is a question of whether future generations of Americans can put their trust in us. Will we follow the experience of 49 States that are required by law to balance their budgets? Do we trust the people to be able to have the right to ratify this amendment through their State legislatures in the process spelled out by the Constitution? We had 67 votes then to make it a part of the Constitution, as everybody knows, it has to go to the States and be ratified by three- fourths of the States. A lot of us have talked about returning more power to the States, power to the people. Dust off the 10th amendment, which is 28 words in length, which says in effect, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution nor denied to the States belong to the States and to the people. So I have confidence in the people of Ohio, the legislators in Kansas, Mississippi, Virginia, Utah, South Carolina, Oregon, North Dakota, wherever. I have confidence in their judgment. So why not give them an opportunity, those who are closer to the people, to make the judgment. Ultimately, this is a question of our values as a nation. Which do we value more: The fleeting interests of the moment, or our economic futures and destiny. Last year the House of Representatives passed the balanced budget amendment by a vote of 300 to 132--more than the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution. We then had several long weeks of debate here in the Senate before the amendment narrowly failed on a vote of 65 to 35 on March 2, 1995. We will shortly have our final vote on the motion to reconsider House Joint Resolution 1. The vote total may not change much today, but this vote is important to place us all on record with the American people on an issue of supreme importance to all Americans. So in a few minutes we will have one last vote--one last chance--to do what's right, and send the balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification. When we debated the constitutional amendment last year, I quoted Thomas Jefferson, who was so concerned about the ability of Democratic Government to control spending, that in 1789 he wrote: 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, morally bound to pay them ourselves. Jefferson's fears of 200 years ago are today's tragic reality. In 1994, the Federal Government spent $203 billion in interest on the national debt--more than it spent on education, job training, public works, and child nutrition combined. In 1994, Americans paid an average of $800 per person in taxes just to service interest on the debt--not to pay off the debt or even to reduce the debt just to pay the interest on the debt. Some say deficits don't matter. But the fact is that the Federal budget deficit is like a tax hike on working families, and one that binds future generations of Americans exactly as Jefferson had warned. The deficit drives up interest rates--and not by a little but by a lot. It is a stealth tax that every family with a home, every father and mother with a child in college, every young person who buys a car must pay, and pay, and pay. What does this stealth tax cost in dollars? Over $36,000 on a typical home mortgage. More than $1,400 on an ordinary student loan. Nearly $700 on a typical car loan. I know around this place we sometimes fail to understand there are real people out there waiting for us to make responsible decisions. I had an experience the other morning with the distinguished Senator from Virginia, in Virginia, near Richmond. Because of a lack of $65 per month, this young couple and their young daughter, a baby, could not buy the house they wanted. To us, $65 a month is $65 a month. To them, it was a matter of a home. And since the President vetoed the balanced budget, interest rates have risen about one and a quarter percentage points. So that couple and another young man--we visited his home--he did not get the home he wanted, the one for $119,000. He took the one for $109,000 because of interest rates. So we can make all these great speeches here that we want, but they are real people and they live in the District, they live in our States, where 1 percent of interest rate does make a difference. We simply cannot continue to mortgage America's future If we continue current tax and spending policies, future generations will be saddled with effective tax rates of more than 80 percent. Failure to stem the flow of red ink from Washington amounts to taxation without representation on our children and grandchildren. That's why the question before us today is, as Jefferson said, ``Of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government.'' I don't think the balanced budget amendment is a partisan issue. Many Democrats voted for the amendment last year and we'd certainly like to have a couple more today. It is not a partisan issue. I have said this publicly for a long time. The leader of the balanced budget effort that I have known for a long time is the Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, who is leaving the Senate. You could vote either way if you are leaving and not worry about it, but he is sticking with principle. We are not going to change any votes because this is an election year and I happen to be the Republican candidate for President. I respect those on the other side who feel they must reflect the views of the occupant of the White House, the President, on it. We had several Senators who had voted for this before, six, in fact, who switched their votes on March 2, 1995. In fact, we were counting 70-some votes for the amendment. Several Senators who changed their votes last year talked about a Social Security firewall. We tried to reach out to those Senators to ensure that Social Security surpluses can never again be used to mask deficit spending. I believed that, after a suitable phase-in, the Federal budget could be balanced without counting the surpluses in the Social Security trust funds. I still hope that one or two of those six Senators who changed their votes last year can come home again and support the balanced budget amendment as they have in the past. As I said, the question of whether we saddle posterity with our debts does not divide us along partisan lines--some Democrats have been a part of this effort from the beginning. But the balanced budget amendment is a critical test of whether we are willing to be responsible for our debts, and to be, in Jefferson's phrase, ``Morally bound to pay them ourselves.'' And here is where the President has lacked leadership--where it matters most. Unlike his predecessors, he has opposed this amendment. The White House lobbied furiously against it and rounded up enough support to defeat the amendment last year by one vote. But we always can hope. And I am hopeful. If it does not happen today, it will happen maybe later this year. Maybe next year the White House will not lobby against it. Maybe somebody will be there to lobby for it. Maybe we can find the votes, the three or four votes that we need. It is no small accomplishment that almost all of us in this Chamber now agree that the budget should be balanced by the year 2002. That's a big change since last March. It's not just Republicans saying it now, but all of us--from Republicans to blue dog Democrats to the President. That in itself is good news for America. Since we all agree that it should be done by the year 2002, let's pass the amendment that requires that we do it by the year 2002. But talk is not enough. President Clinton had an opportunity to demonstrate serious commitment for a balanced budget by urging his Democratic colleagues to support this amendment. Make no mistake: President Clinton's opposition continues to be the single largest obstacle standing in the way of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that 83 percent of the American public want. The Federal budget has not been balanced since 1969. Since that time, Congress has passed no less than seven different laws containing balanced budget requirements. But despite all the votes, all the speeches, and all the good intentions over the past quarter of a century, the Federal debt has grown each and every year. Last year we passed the first balanced Federal budget in a generation. But President Clinton vetoed it. The record of the past 25 years is frustratingly clear: We simply cannot rely on statutory changes to get the job done. We need the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to guarantee that the job gets done. That's why I first introduced a balanced budget amendment back in 1971. And that's why I know ultimately someday this amendment will pass. Maybe not today. Today those of us who for years have been battling for a balanced budget amendment may feel all too much like that ancient Greek philosopher rolling the heavy rock up the hill just to have it roll back down again. It is like the line-item veto. It was never going to happen, but it did, thanks to Senator McCain and Coats and others on the other side of the aisle. But this issue is the right one for America. And one day the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution will be passed in accordance with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Americans. As for today, at least every American will know exactly where each and every one of us stands on the issue, and every American will know exactly where President Clinton stands on the issue. In a few moments, Mr. President, we will have one last vote on whether we can finally pass the balanced budget amendment and send it to the States for ratification. Remember, no single action here in the U.S. Senate is the end of the line. The final decision about whether or not the balanced budget amendment will go into effect rests with those outside Washington. The Founding Fathers decided to give the ultimate authority over constitutional amendments to those who are closest to the people--the men and women who serve in State houses around the country. Let's trust the States and put our faith in the American people. Let's go through the constitutional process that our Founding Fathers so wisely set up. There's a word for that process. And that word is democracy. Passing the balanced budget amendment is the singlemost important thing we can do to ensure that Nation's economic security and to protect the American dream for our children and grandchildren. In this vote we address the fundamental principles of government, and we should, each of us, consider ourselves bound by Jefferson's admonition to be mindful of posterity, and discharge our moral debt to future generations of Americans.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I look back at my years in the Senate, one accomplishment of which I am very proud was the passage of tax reform legislation in 1986, when I was serving as Senate majority leader. This bill was a very important first step in making our tax system fairer, flatter, and simpler. And one of the guiding forces behind its passage was Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey. Senator Bradley is retiring from the Senate at the end of this year, and he leaves behind a record of accomplishment and innovation. From the future of Russia to international trade to the state of our cities, Senator Bradley has been in the forefront of debates, providing both leadership and original proposals. Senator Bradley and I have not agreed on every issue over the years, but one matter on which we see eye-to-eye is the need to restore civility and a sense of decency to American society. I have no doubt that Senator Bradley will continue to contribute a great deal to the debates of our time for many years to come. Elizabeth joins with me in wishing all the best to Senator Bradley, and to his wife, Ernestine. Senator Bradley has been a good friend. We have been on the Finance Committee together. We have agreed on a lot of issues and, as I said earlier, disagreed on some. I think he has added a great deal of civility to this body, and I know he has a bright future as he leaves the Senate in whatever he may do in the private sector.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, like many Members of this body, I learned a great deal about how to succeed in the Senate from our former colleague, Russell Long of Louisiana. Senator Long knew this institution. He knew how to get things done. And he knew how to fight for the interests of his State. And during the 14 years they represented Louisiana together, Senator Long had a willing student and an effective partner in Senator J. Bennett Johnston. And when Senator Johnston leaves this Chamber at the end of the year, he will leave with a reputation as someone who knows the Senate, who knows how to get things done, and who knows how to fight for people of his State. Energy, water development, agriculture, and national defense are all issues that matter to Louisiana, and they are matters that have been on the top of Senator Johnston's agenda. As Republican leader, I have appreciated Senator Johnston's willingness to set partisanship aside, and to do what is best for America. His support of President Bush during the Persian Gulf War, his opposition to the Clinton tax increase, and his leadership in the effort to achieve true regulatory reform are three examples that come to mind. I note that Senator Johnston will celebrate his birthday next week, and I would say to him that he is still a very young man, and that he still has much to contribute to Louisiana and to America.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate before I make any request here that I have had a phone discussion today with Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader. I hope there is still some way before I leave here on Tuesday that we can dispose of, if not all the nominees on the calendar, most of the nominees. It has never been my practice to hold up nominees because they have families; they have plans to make; they have moves to make. I know that we are sort of caught in a crunch here because we have objections from both sides. And I did say on May 24, 1996, that I would be happy to call up these nominations one at a time. If we cannot agree on a package, if we cannot agree to do all or part, then it seems to me that we ought to-- we are talking more about judicial nominees than anything else at this point--go one at a time. Now, whether or not that will be satisfactory--I do not want to make the request if it is not satisfactory, because I know the Democratic leader has obligations too, to his Members. I am not going to ask you to object if you prefer to work this out some other way, but I am prepared and I think the Democratic leader is, if we can find some way, to sort of break this logjam. We are in a position to clear at least 5 nominees, not judges but other nominations. So we are making an effort, a serious effort. I am aware the leader is making an effort to try to accommodate the concerns of the President expressed to me this morning by the Democratic leader. So rather than make the request, I ask the Democratic leader if he knows of any other way we can deal with this that might resolve the problems we both have? Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. As the Democratic leader knows, the Senators are coming to me and they are coming to you. They say, ``Just work out my problem,'' which I would be happy to do. But there are others who say, ``Not until you work out my problem.'' And therein lies the problem. So I hope we could accommodate. The judges I had in mind were Joseph Greenaway of New Jersey and Walker Miller of Colorado. We could go down the whole list one time. Maybe everybody would cease to object, because then we would have a vote up or down or somebody would have to stand up here and say I want to speak however long it takes to sidetrack this nominee. Perhaps we can, between now and Monday, and we are here at least for 2 or 3 hours tomorrow morning. I will be happy to visit with the Democratic leader.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the first 8 years of my time as Republican leader coincided with the administrations of Republican Presidents. And one of my jobs as leader was do everything I could to support the agenda of those Presidents. Though Senator Pryor is not the Democrat leader, he has made it his job the past 3 years to do everything he could to support President Clinton, his long-time friend and fellow Arkansan. And no doubt about it, President Clinton could not have asked for a better friend than Senator Pryor. While we have disagreed on many issues--especially over the last 3 years--I have admired his loyalty to the President. I have also admired the special interest that Senator Pryor has taken on issues of importance to senior citizens. When he was in the House of Representatives, he was the driving force behind the establishment of the Aging Committee, and has chaired that committee here in the Senate. Senator Pryor will also be remembered for his longstanding crusade against overly harsh enforcement methods of the Internal Revenue Service, and he is due a great deal of credit for the passage in 1988 of the taxpayers bill of rights. I would close by saying to Senator Pryor that it is my hope that come next January, I will have the privilege of having Senators who are as good of friends to a Dole administration as he has been to the Clinton administration.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1634, relating to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

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 9:30 a.m. on Friday, June 7; further, that immediately 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, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period for the transaction of morning business for a period of 2 hours, with the first hour under the control of Senator Coverdell, the second hour under the control of Senator Daschle or his designee, with 15 minutes of the minority time under the control of Senator Leahy.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will conduct morning business. I do not believe there will be rollcall votes. I cannot say that for certain. If we work out something on judges we may have a vote or two, but they will be minimal, if any. And we may be asked to turn to any executive or legislative items cleared for action. Let me just indicate, I have been working, as I know the Democratic leader has, trying to figure out something on the budget, perhaps get a time agreement. We have also been working on the so-called Kassebaum-Kennedy health care reform. My view was we were getting very, very close. I may be mistaken, but there have been constant contacts with the White House at the staff level. And there have been changes made in the MSA provision, which is the one provision that seems to be the sticking point, and many of the other issues with reference to mental health, the so-called MEWA's, and other provisions, have been resolved. So it is still hopeful that that can be accomplished between now and early next week. But, in any event, I think there are still conversations going on at this moment.