Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I now ask we proceed en bloc to the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar, 481, 484 through 489, 493 and 494, and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Foreign Service and Public Health Service.

Mr. DOLE. I further ask consent the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements relating to nominations be placed at this point in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and, further, that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. If there be 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, is leader time reserved?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the Medicare trustees have now released their report on the state of the Medicare trust fund, and the news is not good. Instead of going bankrupt in the year 2002, as they had previously forecasted, the trustees now conclude that Medicare will go bankrupt in the year 2001--just 5 years from now. For the past year and a half, this Republican Congress has attempted to deal honestly and forthrightly with the impending Medicare meltdown. We have put forward a budget that would protect, preserve, and strengthen Medicare by reducing the unsustainable rate of growth, while still allowing for a healthy growth rate. We did not claim that our plan was perfect or that it solved a long- term problem. But it was a real attempt to alleviate a crisis that will immediately impact 37 million Americans and will have repercussions on tens of millions more. Along with our proposals to provide for short-term solvency in the Medicare trust funds, I also suggested, on numerous occasions, that President Clinton appoint a blue ribbon, bipartisan advisory committee, similar to the one I served on in 1983 that rescued Social Security, to help deal with this long-term crisis in Medicare. I was interested to see that Secretary Shalala made a similar recommendation today. My response to the initial report of the Medicare trustees was based on my belief that leadership means more than just talking about the problem; it also means doing something to solve it. It is also clear to me that if we are to be successful, we must put politics aside and work on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, President Clinton has been unwilling to do that. Ever since the trustees--three of whom are members of the President's administration--issued their original report, the administration has chosen to either ignore the warning of Medicare's impending bankruptcy, or to engage in a very sad campaign to frighten America's senior citizens. It is an undeniable fact that the Republican proposal allowed spending for Medicare beneficiaries to increase from $4,800 to $7,200 per person over 7 years. It is also an undeniable fact that in their ill-fated health care reform proposal the Clinton administration advocated slowing Medicare's rate of growth. Despite that fact, however, the President vetoed our Medicare proposal. We have heard nothing--nothing at all--but attacks on Republicans for ``slashing and cutting'' Medicare. When the President was asked not long ago why he continued to use these terms even though they are not true--and I happened to be listening to the press conference--he said that the media made him do it. Maybe they did. But he has been doing it. With the release of today's report, the inescapable conclusion is that, while the rhetoric flew, Medicare was put at further risk. Those who say that talk is cheap should now know that 18 months of misleading rhetoric may have gained points in the opinion polls, but it also put Medicare another $90 billion-plus in the red. The bottom line is that the 37 million Americans who depend on Medicare deserve better. Future generations of Americans who will need Medicare deserve better. The choice is clear. America's leaders can spend the next 5 months focusing on the next election, thereby allow Medicare to grow ever closer to bankruptcy; or we can focus on the next generation, and do what we must to save Medicare. It will not be easy nor simple. The solution cannot be a shell game, moving money from one part of Medicare to another. A tax increase is also not the answer. I call on the President to come forward with real initiatives so we can preserve the Medicare Program and to join with Republicans on a bipartisan basis, as I have proposed before, to address this very serious problem. So we have 37 million Americans who depend on Medicare. That is the bottom line. Future generations are looking to whether or not there will be any Medicare trust fund or any Medicare benefits. I think we need to fix Medicare just as we fixed Social Security in 1983 on a bipartisan, nonpartisan basis. I remember walking onto the Senate floor in 1983 right in that aisleway when we thought everything had evaporated--collapsed. I met Senator Moynihan coming in the door. And we stood here and talked for 2 or 3 minutes about we could not let this happen; there were too many millions of Americans who depended on Social Security. So together we got it back on track. And the end result is we did in effect rescue Social Security. Now someone is going to be asked to do the same with Medicare. I would call on the President to stop running the TV commercials, to stop trying to scare senior citizens, to stop trying to frighten seniors with some of the ads paid for by union dues. Millions and millions and millions of dollars have been spent on political attacks and TV attacks on Republicans who want to fix, preserve, and strengthen Medicare. Today is the day of reckoning. Today even the administration says, ``Oh, well. We ought to fix this.'' We are going to fix it, or it is going to be bankrupt. And I believe it will be fixed. So the President now I understand would like to work it out. He has had a whole year to bash Republicans, a whole year to scare senior citizens, and now he understands--at least the people around him understand--the seriousness of this shell game. So I call on the President to come forward with real initiative so we can preserve the Medicare Program and join with us. As I said, our plan is not perfect either. Maybe we can come together. This is a very serious problem. It is not going to go away. It is not going to go away. The trustees' report is very clear on that particular area. It is not going to go away. We have to fix it. We have to stand up and be counted. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot scare seniors on the one hand and fix it on the other. It is time to tell the American people the truth. It is time to tell the American people--to give the American people the facts. So I would be prepared--I am certain my colleagues will be prepared-- to work with the administration if in fact they want to work on a bipartisan basis. This is serious business--37 million Americans who want us to make progress to do it the right way--to preserve and strengthen Medicare.

Mr. DOLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DOLE. Let me indicate first that I acknowledge the Senator's efforts over the years to face up to the budget problem. He has demonstrated it with his votes. I think in this case though--I do not have the amendment before me. I know what it says. I think if we do that over a period of years, others would like to do it right now--we phase it out. I think the Senator is saying he would prefer we do it immediately. We have been doing it the way proposed here for some time. Even in the 7-year budget plan we proposed, of course, we did not use Social Security. So our view is--my view on this balanced budget which I will discuss tomorrow--is that we need to make it very clear precisely what we are doing because we need this discipline. We need to send this to the States, and give the States a chance to ratify it. If Kansas does not want to ratify it, or South Carolina, or Arizona, or Idaho, that is their right. But if three-fourths of the States do not ratify the amendment it does not became part of the Constitution. I think the Senator from South Carolina also shares our views on Medicare. He is one Senator who will not stand here and let Medicare go belly up. I hope that there will be enough bipartisan support that whatever the problem is can be remedied and remedied very quickly.

Mr. DOLE. I would be pleased to look at anything the Senator suggests. The Senator from Idaho, I believe, has about the same approach. At least it might be the same result obtained by the Senator from South Carolina. He will be our next speaker.

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, it is no secret that one regret I will have when I leave the Senate is the fact that we did not send a balanced budget amendment to the States. And I know that regret is shared by many in this Chamber including our colleague, Senator Paul Simon. The balanced budget amendment is a cause that Senator Simon has courageously advanced since his arrival here many years ago in 1985. Perhaps his aversion to deficits and red ink arose from the fact that Senator Simon began his career at age 19 by editing and publishing a small newspaper. Whatever the reason, Senator Simon hit the nail on the head when he stated that allowing skyrocketing deficits to continue was ``a policy of folly.'' If I know Senator Simon, I know that he will continue to write and speak against this policy of folly until it is changed. The balanced budget is not the only debate to which Senator Simon has devoted his considerable intellect and energy. Education reform, the impact television has on our children, and world hunger are just three of the many issues Senator Simon has embraced during his 12 years in this Chamber. I will also long remember the support Senator Simon provided during the battle for passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act. His long and distinguished public career also includes 8 years in the Illinois House of Representatives, 6 years in the Illinois State senate, 4 years as Illinois lieutenant governor, and 10 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. Somehow, this prolific writer has also found time to author 15 books and through all his nearly 50 years of service, from his day as crusading editor until today, he has maintained a spotless reputation for total and complete integrity. Though we come from different sides of the aisle, I can say without hesitation Senator Simon's retirement will deprive this Chamber of one of our most thoughtful Members. Elizabeth joins me in wishing he and Jeanne many more years of health and happiness.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, in the suite of offices I have been privileged to occupy as Republican leader hangs a picture of Senator Charles McNary of Oregon. Senator McNary served as Republican leader for over 10 years in the 1930's and 1940's, and he served for over 26 years in the Senate. He was the longest serving Senator in Oregon history until his record was broken by our colleague, Senator Mark Hatfield. All Oregonians would agree that not only has Senator Hatfield made history in terms of longevity, he has also set standards in terms of integrity. Senator Hatfield and I have served together in this Chamber for over 27 years. In that time, we have agreed on many issues and we have disagreed on many others, but I can say without hesitation that not once in the years we have served together did I ever doubt that Mark Hatfield was standing up for what he truly believed was right for Oregon and for America. Senator Hatfield has devoted himself to many causes in the Senate, including improving Oregon's infrastructure, medical research, and the search for a cure to Alzheimer's disease. Perhaps he is best known for his dedication to the cause of peace, a dedication arising from service in World War II where he saw battle at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and was among the first U.S. servicemen to enter Hiroshima following the atomic explosion. Before entering politics, he was a college professor, and when he returns to Oregon in January he will once again enter the classroom. The fact is, however, that for Senator Hatfield the U.S. Capitol was also a classroom and the lessons he has taught us all, lessons in statesmanship, leadership, and friendship, will remain with us and with this Chamber for many years to come. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the State of Maine has a rich tradition of sending independent and thoughtful voices to the U.S. Senate. Margaret Chase Smith and Ed Muskie are just two Senators with whom I have served who have carried on this tradition. For the past 18 years, that tradition and the best interests of Maine citizens have been very ably represented in this Chamber by our colleague, Bill Cohen. One thing I have learned about Bill Cohen is that he does not know how to just touch the surface of an issue. If I gave him an assignment, or if he involved himself in a problem, then along with learning everything there is to know about that problem, he also would provide innovative solutions. Military preparedness, the Central Intelligence Agency, lobby reform, health care fraud and abuse, Medicare, international trade, these are just a few of the countless areas that have benefited from Bill Cohen's intellect and energy. As my colleagues know, Bill has also found time to publish a number of books, including a very thoughtful look at his first year in the Senate, a spy novel, an account of the Iran-Contra investigation, and a number of volumes of poetry. Bill's departure from the Senate will leave him with more time for writing, and more time for thinking. And I have no doubt that his writing and his thinking will continue to influence American public policy for many years to come.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that we need to vote on a motion to proceed to legislation dealing with an issue so critical to America's future as national missile defense. In his speech to the Coast Guard Academy, the President stated that he supports missile defense. Yet, today I expect that a majority of the other side of the aisle--at the Clinton administration's request--will vote against the motion to proceed to the Defend America Act. The fact is that the President speaks of his support for national missile defense, but acts in opposition to it. Last year the President vetoed the Defense authorization bill specifically citing the provision making it U.S. policy to deploy a national missile defense system by 2003. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle also profess their support of missile defense but are quick to add that they cannot support this bill. It is hard to understand their reasons. They cite technological questions, mention costs, but ignore the fact that this bill puts the very decision of what system is chosen in the hands of President Clinton's own Secretary of Defense. That leads me to one conclusion: The Clinton administration and its allies seek to avoid debate on defending America. This is unfortunate and irresponsible. I believe that an open debate and discussion on this national security issue is vitally important because there are many misconceptions--about the threat our Nation faces, about the present state of our missile defense programs, about the cost of an effective national missile defense system. The greatest misconception held by a majority of the American people is that the United States can defend itself against ballistic missile attack. Most Americans think that if a ballistic missile is fired at the United States, we can shoot it down. The truth is, we cannot. We have no defense--I repeat--no defense against ballistic missiles. As we enter the 21st century, there is no greater threat to our Nation, than that posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. The list of countries acquiring chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and ballistic missile technology numbers around 25 at present--and is steadily growing. President Clinton's former CIA Director, Jim Woolsey, testified at length to the Congress on the nature of the proliferation threat and was critical of recent intelligence estimates which were narrowly focused and based on questionable assumptions. You would not know from some of today's remarks by opponents of the Defend America Act that the cold war is over. The Soviet Union no longer exists. Yet, the Clinton administration, some on the other side of the aisle--and even some members of the press--are acting as if we are still in the 1970's and 1980's. They speak of star wars, space shields, mutual assured destruction. But, the world has changed. We must look to the future, not the past. I would like to quote from one of the key Clinton administration arms control experts, Mr. Bob Bell. He is quoted in today's Washington Post defending changes being made to the Conventional Forces in Europe [CFE] Treaty, saying ``* * * were we going to take account of this change in the stra- tegic situation over the last five years * * *?'' That is what we are talking about here--taking account of the change in the strategic situation. This bill recognizes that the threat our country faces has changed and it seeks to respond to it in a measured and responsible fashion. The Defend America Act does not require abrogation of the ABM Treaty. It urges the President to negotiate with the Russians on changes to the ABM Treaty--just as the administration has been doing with other arms control treaties only at the Russians' request. Which makes me wonder if the Russians asked for changes to the ABM Treaty would the Clinton administration have a different position? As for our ability to defend America--there should be no doubt that we have the technological capability to effectively defend our citizens from the growing threat of ballistic missiles. What is needed is the will and leadership to deploy an effective national missile defense system by 2003. A national missile defense system cannot be built overnight. The development and production of new tanks, new fighter planes takes years. And, when these new weapons systems, for example the Stealth fighter, are finally deployed they are not obsolete. Finally, on the matter of cost. The CBO estimates are so wide ranging that they are almost irrelevant as a guide to decisionmakers. We need to look at our defense needs and affordability. And an effective national missile defense system can be deployed affordably. One can add any number of unnecessary requirements to a number of weapons system thereby making them unaffordable. This is no different than building a house. A family of four probably needs a three bedroom home--not a 10- bedroom mansion. This does not mean that a 10-bedroom house cannot be built--if one has the money. Mr. President, let us get past the distortions and the hollow rhetoric and move toward a serious debate on defending America. I would like to quote from a great western leader, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: With the collapse of the Soviet Union there was also a dispersal of weapons of mass destruction and of the technologies to produce them. This has gone much further than we envisaged; and it now constitutes quite simply the most dangerous threat of our times. Yet there is still a conspiracy of silence among Western governments and analysts about it. Mr. President, let us end the conspiracy of silence. The American people deserve better. The most basic responsibility our Government has to its citizens is to protect them from harm. To ignore the changing world and cling to past thinking is inexcusable.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, earlier today I think Senator Brown of Colorado in my behalf and in behalf of others introduced the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act. I am certainly pleased to be joined by the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Senator Brown--who has been a real leader on this issue--the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and a number of other colleagues. This legislation is intended to expedite the transition to full NATO membership of emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe. This bill builds on earlier bipartisan legislation, such as the NATO Participation Act of 1994, which reflects the strong bipartisan support for the policy of enlarging the NATO alliance. NATO has expanded its membership on three occasions, each time enhancing security and stability in Europe. Bringing eligible Central and Eastern European nations into NATO will serve that same critical purpose. For nearly 4 years, the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe have sought to protect their freedom and independence by becoming members-- full members--of Western institutions, especially NATO. They have repeatedly petitioned for membership. Moreover, they have seized every opportunity for such association, proving their flexibility and seriousness. They have become partners for peace, but they desire to become real members of a real alliance. The need for a more inclusive, more effective atlantic alliance that would respond to present security needs has been clear at least since violent aggression began in the former Yugoslavia--where the world witnessed the ineffective response of the United Nations, the European Community, the Western European Union, NATO, and the United States. Since that time, it became clear that the elaborate architecture of European security developed during the cold war era was, and is, not up to the challenges of the post-cold-war world. Meanwhile, the window of opportunity for consolidation of new freedoms, independence, and security is closing. Forging new relationships and new institutions is increasingly difficult and controversial. In my view, further delays will undermine the governments and confidence of people recently freed from the expansionist ambitions of aggressive neighbors. Yet, the Clinton administration has acted as if time were not a factor--as if there were no threats to the independence of the newly self-governing democracies. Secretary Christopher in a recent speech stated that the administration's policy was ``slow, but deliberate.'' I believe the administration's policy is deliberately slow. The Clinton administration has consistently avoided concrete steps toward NATO enlargement--studying and discussing, but not acting. Mr. President, this legislation is designed to facilitate NATO enlargement by providing targeted security assistance for those countries most likely to become eligible to join NATO. The NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act creates a $60 million assistance program composed of Foreign Military Financing [FMF] loan and grant programs and the International Military Education and Training [IMET] program. This legislation declares Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic eligible for this assistance and authorizes the President to designate others as they meet the criteria in current law. This legislation, however, does not name countries to be NATO members. That is a decision for the alliance to take. This legislation seeks to make up for time lost due to a lack of U.S. leadership. It is also important to note that this bill is a beginning, not an endpoint. Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary will likely be the first countries in Central and Eastern Europe to join NATO-- not the last. Finally, this legislation should not be interpreted as a lessening of U.S. interests in close ties with other countries in the region. The freedom and security of all of Europe's new democracies are a big concern to us. I believe that the United States and NATO must act decisively--before the window of opportunity closes. When the Bush administration was confronted with the challenge of German reunification, Western leaders swiftly reached agreement on policy and acted resolutely to achieve it. As with German reunification, the act of including Central and Eastern European democracies in NATO is not and cannot reasonably be seen as an affront--much less a threat--to any other country, least of all Russia. All actual and potential members of the NATO alliance share an interest in a peaceable, democratic Russia. Furthermore, the United States has a distinct national interest in a firm security relationship with Russia. Any United States Government should, and we expect, will work cooperatively with a democratic Russia for the consolidation of security in Europe--but not by denying NATO membership to Europe's new democracies. Mr. President, NATO enlargement has enjoyed bipartisan support since the end of the cold war. I hope that all of my colleagues will support this legislation in that same bipartisan spirit. Let me say that we also, of course, addressed in our press conference earlier today, when we were honored to have former President Lech Welesa of Poland with us, that no countries are named. It is very likely that the first three countries invited will be Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Though we have not forgotten the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and other Central and Eastern European countries when they have complied and when they have been selected by NATO. So my view is that we have had the good beginning. The former President of Poland was very impressed, and he feels that we may now be on the way to achieving something that has been eluding these freedom loving people for a number of years.

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, ``I am less dynamic than many,'' Senator Claiborne Pell once said in his typical quiet manner, ``But I have my own course, which I set and try to follow.'' For six terms, Claiborne Pell has followed that course in representing America's smallest State in terms of geography with a commitment and dedication that is anything but small. Foreign policy and the environment are just two of the many issues on which the contributions of Senator Pell will be long remembered. But, as countless college students over a quarter century can tell you, the one cause which will be forever linked with the gentleman from Rhode Island is education. His basic education opportunity grant--justifiably renamed the Pell grant in 1980--has provided many financially challenged young Americans with the resources necessary to receive a college degree. The great educator Henry Adams once said, ``a teacher affects eternity. He can never tell where his influence stops.'' Senator Pell will leave this Chamber with the knowledge that he will never be able to tell where his influence stops--because it would be impossible to know or quantify the difference that Pell grants made in the life of countless Americans. I am proud to be called a conservative Republican and Senator Pell is proud to be known as a liberal Democrat. Despite the fact we were on the opposite side of many issues, however, I never doubted the fact that Senator Pell's word was his bond, and I knew that, no matter what, I could always count on Senator Pell's friendship. I look forward to counting on that friendship for many years to come.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it has been my practice as Senator Republican leader to pay tribute to colleagues who are retiring from the Senate. Usually, these remarks are delivered shortly before the Senate adjourns for the year. However, my announcement of 2 weeks ago that I will also be leaving the Senate has moved up my time schedule. In the coming days, then, I will be devoting some of my leader time to share a few memories of those of our colleagues who will not return to this Chamber when the 105th Congress convenes next January. Let me start with a friend of all of us, Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama. For 18 years, Howell Heflin has represented Alabama with distinction here in the U.S. Senate. But to many here in this Chamber, and to countless Alabamans, it is not ``Senator'' Heflin, it is ``judge'' Heflin. Prior to his arrival in the Senate, judge Heflin served for 6 years as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, earning a reputation for fairness and common sense. It's a reputation that has continued through his service here in the Senate. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Heflin has become known, in the words of the almanac of American politics, as ``a careful lawyer who picks at the rules of law with the delicate touch of a watch repairman.'' It took someone with that touch to successful revise America's bankruptcy laws, as Senator Heflin did in 1994. Alabama, like Kansas, is a State with a strong agriculture heritage, and I have enjoyed serving with Senator Heflin on the Agriculture Committee, and learning a great deal from him about issues ranging from peanuts to the boll weevil. But as I reflect back on our 18-year friendship, the one incident that remains most clearly in my mind was Senator Heflin's vote authorizing President Bush to use force to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Senator Heflin was 1 of 11 Senate Democrats who has the courage to break with their leadership and stand with the President. History will always reflect that this was the right decision and that had the 52 to 47 vote gone differently, it would have been a tremendous blow to America's prestige. Elizabeth and I are proud to call Howell and ``Mike'' Heflin our friends, and we wish them many more years of health and happiness as they return to the state they love so much and have served so well.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have learned over the years that Kansans and Coloradans share more than a common border. We also share a deep belief in the values of hard work, honesty, and personal responsibility. And, as westerners, we share a healthy skepticism of those who think they are better qualified to tell us how to run our affairs because they happen to work in the Nation's Capital. For 6 years, the Colorado point-of-view has been represented in this Chamber with great energy and eloquence by Hank Brown. Senator Brown hit the ground running when he arrived in the Senate, and he has not stopped since, making a difference on nearly every major issue we have debated. Hank Brown understands the dangers of deficit spending, and the benefits that would come with a balanced budget. And, as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, he worked closely with Senator Domenici in writing the historic Republican plan to balance the budget. Senator Brown also has exhibited tremendous political courage in his willingness to speak forthrightly about the absolute necessity to reform entitlement programs if our children are to live in financially solvent Nation. From a personal point of view, I am grateful that Senator Brown has provided me with the same candor with which he has addressed the issues of our day. I always knew that when I asked Hank a question, I would receive in return the plainspoken truth. From the skies above Vietnam to the floor of Congress, Hank Brown has devoted his life to forthrightly serving his country. Though he is leaving the Senate after just one term, I have no doubt that he will keep on doing precisely that.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc, on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 482, 521 through 528, 530, 554 and 555. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, that any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, the Senate then return to legislative session.

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 9:15 a.m. on Wednesday, June 5; 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, and the time for the two leaders be retained their use later in the day, there then be a period for morning business until the hour of 11 a.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each with the following exceptions: Senator Roth, 30 minutes; Senator Bradley or designee, 40 minutes; Senator Grassley, 5 minutes. I further ask at 11 a.m. the Senate begin debate on House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment. I further ask the time for debate on Wednesday be equally divided with the portion of time under the control of the Democrats divided as follows: Senator Hollings, 2 hours; Senator Dorgan, 1 hour; Senator Exon, 30 minutes; further, I ask the time between 1:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. be under the control of Senator Thomas.

Mr. DOLE. So, I would say for the information of all Senators, tomorrow will be dedicated to debate on the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent a motion to proceed and the motion to reconsider be agreed to, and the vote occur on passage of House Joint Resolution. 1 at 12 noon on Thursday, June 6, 1996, with the last 40 minutes of debate under the control of the two leaders with the majority leader in control of the closing 20 minutes.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it had been my hope tonight, on behalf of Senator Kassebaum, to pass Senate Concurrent Resolution 63. We were going to ask that the Committee on Agriculture be discharged from further consideration of that resolution and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration. I understand there may be an amendment on the other side of the aisle. As I understand, the person who may have the amendment is not now available. Let me indicate what the resolution will do. We have been promised that maybe by tomorrow morning sometime we can resolve any problem. I hope that is the only reason. There may be another reason that sort of crosses my mind as I stand here. This resolution will express the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Agriculture should dispose of all remaining commodities in the disaster reserve maintained under the Agricultural Act of 1970 to relieve the distress of livestock producers whose ability to maintain livestock is adversely affected by the prolonged drought conditions existing in certain areas of the United States, and for other purposes. The amendment indicates that, in light of the prolonged drought conditions existing in certain areas of the United States, the Secretary of Agriculture promptly dispose of all commodities in the disaster reserve maintained under section 813 of the Agricultural Act of 1970, 7 USC 1427 (a) to relieve the distress of livestock producers whose ability to maintain livestock is adversely affected by the prolonged drought. And that is true. In some parts of America, including my home State of Kansas, we have had a long drought. In fact, in Texas, I think it is the worst drought they have had, in some parts of Texas, in over 50 years. So I hope we can move on this quickly. It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It may be that the administration has decided to move without passage of the resolution. That will probably be known later.

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

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.