Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. First, before we do that, I understand the Senator from Missouri would like about 8 minutes and the Senator from Washington about 8 minutes.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to underscore a point made by the Democratic leader because I had forgotten Governor Thompson indicated they would like a little time, too, the Governors. We sort of unveiled our bill in Burlington, VT, I guess, a week ago Monday. The President talked about welfare that same day. The Governors broke up the next day, and they have had one meeting. They are about to send us a letter in general terms saying they support a lot of things in different proposals. The Governor made the point this would give them some time in the next 3 weeks to try to bring Governors together--Governors, I am talking about Democrats, Republicans--to see if there is some common ground. There may not be. So I want to underscore the point made by the Democratic leader. Second, to indicate that when we come back, with the appropriations bills out of the way, there has been a lot of talk about a train wreck in this town on October 1. When we finish the appropriations bills, we will have finished everything that has been reported out by the Appropriations Committee. There is nothing else left to take up. So when we come back on September 5, we will be back on the welfare bill, which will give the appropriators time to report out the other bills. We want all these bills, if we can possibly do it, down to the President before October 1. You have to go to conference; you have to do a lot of things. We may have to negotiate with the White House and others. So I think that is very important. We want to try to avoid that. We want the President to understand that the Congress has done its work on time, and completing these three appropriations bills will be a big step in that direction. Finally to indicate--not just to indicate, just a fact-- we will bring up welfare again on the 5th of September, unless something unforeseen happens. That would be Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday of that week, maybe even slip into the next week, into Monday. If we cannot finish it in a reasonable time, then I think the Democratic leader understands and others understand, we will probably have to put it in reconciliation. But first we want to give everybody an opportunity. I would rather pass a freestanding welfare reform bill where everybody has a right to offer amendments, we have votes on the amendments--and I think there are going to be dozens of amendments, legitimate amendments. But I would make that statement. And that date is September 27, sort of the drop-dead day for that process. So we do not have a lot of time. I think this makes the best use of our time, and it also permits our colleagues to start the recess either Friday or Saturday of this week. I thank my colleague, the Democratic leader. Amendment No. 2282 to Amendment No. 2280

Mr. DOLE. And the Senator from Massachusetts, 4 minutes. So that gives the appropriators 20 minutes.

Mr. DOLE. So the appropriators have 25 minutes to arrive.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we will probably be making comments on the bill, too, on this side of the aisle. A lot of comments have been about our bill, so I assume we will probably make a few comments about this bill before the recess.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for waiting just a few more moments. I think the Senator from Washington also wanted to speak, Senator Murray. Let me just sort of lay out where we are and where we are going. I discovered a lot of people want to go home, which has some impact on what we are doing. I think it is fair to say we have had almost 2 solid days of debate on welfare reform, plus statements by the two leaders on Saturday. And I think, without exception, we have had good debate. We have had different points of view, different philosophical approaches. But overall it has been steady, and we have had very few quorum calls. But it is also clear to me--and I am not criticizing anybody, I just know how this place works--we are not going to finish the bill this week. We could stay all night every night. So the question is, let us do it next week. But I know from counting on this side there would be a number of absentees, and I assume the same would be true on the other side, because people can make commitments. There was an August recess. So I was faced with the reality of what we can do and what we cannot do and knowing we cannot finish this this week. I have talked to the Democratic leader about it. We had a good visit. We were not going back and forth blaming each other. I think the conclusion was, the signals were, there was no way we could do it. There were too many amendments, too many people had not been heard. But I would say on this side, today Governor Thompson, who is chairman of the National Governors Association, was kind enough to come to Washington from Wisconsin, and we met with about, I would say, 18, 20, 22 Republican Senators. And we heard from a Governor who has cut his welfare caseload 27 percent and a Governor who is saving $17 million a month. Half of that is Federal money and half of that is State. And somebody who knows about child care, health care, transportation, and other things he says are so important to welfare reform. He tried to make the point--and did make the point very effectively with a number of my colleagues on different sides of the spectrum here--that Governors get elected by the same people we do. Do you not trust your Governors? Then he went on to say what he had done in Wisconsin. So, I think we are a little closer together, I would say, on the Republican side, than we were 6 or 7 hours ago. So, today and tomorrow and Friday we will be going back to Republicans who had different views on the so-called leadership bill, the Work Opportunity Act of 1995, and perhaps the leaders would reserve the right to modify their bills before we go out on Friday. I think at that point we would be, hopefully, very, very close to having every Republican on board. I think maybe Senator Daschle can say the same. These negotiations are going on now. They are going to continue. So I have to make a judgment whether I want the negotiations to go on and make some headway and then bring all that to the floor on Friday, or should we go ahead today and finish three very important appropriations bills: Transportation, Interior, Defense appropriations and the Defense authorization bill. That is a lot to do in 3 days. It may spill into Saturday. But I have learned from the past that when you have a deadline, things do go more quickly. Suddenly speeches that could have been made for hours are 10 minutes, and they are better. People actually listen to 10-minute speeches. So we hope that is the case. It is my intent to go to the Interior bill, if it is satisfactory with the Democratic leader, and try to finish that, hopefully, tonight. We have had consultations with managers on each side. There are some contentious amendments, but I do hope we can have cooperation of all Members on each side as far as amendments--give us time agreements, give the managers time [[Page S 11839]] agreements. And I think the question is--I think I already know the answer because I have talked to the Democratic leader--I think we have agreed to cooperate on this, to work on both sides of the aisle, try to get Members to cooperate with us. When we finish these bills, the recess starts. So it is automatic. It is automatic. It is up to every Member when he or she stands up to address an issue--and certainly some of these should not be addressed in a--Do not misunderstand this. They are very serious. But I think we can make the case in fairly rapid order. So I ask the Democratic leader if he concurs in this statement, and, if so, it would then be the intention of the leader to move to the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. DOLE. Excuse me.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I want to finish my statement. This is the first statement I have made except a brief introductory statement.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it takes the commonsense approach of requiring that single teenaged parents receiving welfare must stay in school and live under adult supervision. I know this is a breaking point with some of my colleagues on this side. I am not certain about that side. In S. 1120, we give the States authority to deny benefits to teenage mothers and to place family caps. Again, I believe the Governors can make that choice. Many will make that choice. Others, for reasons that they feel are justified, and maybe better than ours, just want to do it at the Federal level. They want to mandate that you have to do it. We want it so the Governors can do it without asking Federal approval. Give them a little flexibility, give them a little freedom. S. 1120 also requires that welfare applicants cooperate with paternity establishment of their children and requires the States to achieve a 90 percent success rate. Now, if some mother out there identifies the father and the search is begun, they cannot find the father, should we go so far as to say she cannot have any benefits even though she cooperated? I do not think so. Others would deny benefits until the father is apparently located. One of the reasons the present system has failed is it provides no time limit for receiving welfare. And it offers in effect motivation for recipients to leave the welfare rolls for a payroll. We have long fought to put work back in. As I said, in 1988, with the former Senator from Colorado, Bill Armstrong, we made a number of modifications to the Family Security Act which many of my colleagues and then the chairman, Senator Moynihan, accepted because he was just as genuinely sincere as we were in trying to make changes. So there was a feeling back then by the American people and by the Members of Congress in both parties that work was important. We also introduced at that time what we now know as participation standards that required States to make certain a percentage of their population was actually engaged in work. S. 1120 goes further. With no exceptions, every adult recipient must start working and stay working. In our bill, work means work--no year- long job searches, no graduate degrees, no moving from one training program to another. And as I said, in the modification I just made, you cannot stay in vocational education forever either. There is a 1-year limit. I assume some Governors would find this to work because that would satisfy their concerns. And then there is the question about whether we have strong work requirements in S. 1120. The bottom line is that S. 1120 contains the same provisions that are in the House bill with respect to the number of hours that must be worked, and it actually contains tougher participation requirements because States must sanction beneficiaries who refuse to work. And we have made a modification in that area, too. But I would just say that the general thrust is hopefully we can work out any differences on this side. As I have said, let us have a jump ball. We will throw it up in the air, and whoever gets the tip wins, and we are all still in the game. We do not say, well, if I lost, I am out of the game. Some will win and some will fail. According to the Congressional Budget Office--and I think Senator Packwood mentioned this--we will save in S. 1120 over the next 7 years--and these are estimates, CBO estimates which could be off either way--$70 billion. That is a lot of money. The House saves--they do not have a 7-year figure; they have a 5-year figure--$65 billion. So I would assume they save much more in 7 years, at least according to assumptions. The point I wish to make today is this is the first day of the real debate. I would like to complete action on this bill this week. I do not see why we cannot. We will only have one or two distractions. We are still trying to work out an agreement on the DOD authorization bill. I think as we speak Senators are meeting to see if they can modify a couple of things that might permit us to complete action on that. If not, that will not be taken up. But we will have 5 long days here, and maybe--I said Saturday we would not have a Saturday session, but if it meant completing action on this bill Saturday, obviously that would be different. I am not trying to threaten anybody. I say we ought to finish this before we leave. I am not saying if we just stall it until Friday we are out of here. That is not what I am saying. We ought to finish it before we leave, and that can be interpreted differently by different Members. I hope we do not become overly partisan in the debate. As I said at the outset, it is not about compassion. It is not about generosity. It is about a system for some reason that is not working, despite all the good efforts by many and some in this Chamber now. I think it is our duty to fix it. It is our duty to fix it. We ought to get it fixed this week. We ought to get it fixed before we leave here for what may be left of the August recess, so we will be in a position to go to conference with the House. I must say, in the White House release that I referred to earlier, one thing that was encouraging, Mr. McCurry, the White House spokesman, made it very clear that they were not threatening a veto. ``A long way from a veto'' and ``wants to cooperate with Capitol Hill.'' Their biggest objection is that ``It does not require States to offer child care opportunities for welfare recipients going to work.'' That is the big objection the White House has apparently at least today with the so-called leadership bill, the Work Opportunity Act of 1995. And I might say there are some on this side who have the same concern. That is what it is all about. How do you get enough people together with different views to pass it? You cannot pass it with 23 votes. You cannot pass it with 33 votes. You cannot pass it with 43 votes. We might have to have 60 votes, though I am told, at least by inference, there will be no effort to filibuster or cloture will not be necessary on this bill, because I believe everybody wants us to come up with some change. If that is the case, it is out there somewhere. There are 51 or 61 or 71 votes out there somewhere. And that is what this debate is all about. It is not about the toughest. It is not about the easiest. It is about substantial, meaningful change because the system has failed. I hope as we continue the debate we will have a coming together of ideas. The leadership does not suggest S. 1120 is perfect. I might say there are one or two provisions that divide the people on this side of the aisle like cash payments to teenage mothers. That is opposed by the Catholic bishops and by the Catholic Charities and the National Right to Life Organization but supported by the Christian Coalition, and you have the same lineup on family caps; also opposed by the 30 Republican Governors. So it is not a question of--I mean I assume those groups are viewed as conservative groups. In this particular instance, they do not agree with one another, just as we do not agree with one another on some of these provisions. Hopefully we can work those out, plus others that are of particular concern to my friends like Senator Faircloth and others on this side of the aisle.

Mr. DOLE. Speech or a question?

Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. It made sense to me, so we have made that change. I heard my friend from Texas refer to this bill as ``the Dole bill.'' This is the leadership bill. This is a bill sponsored by every Republican Member of the leadership and 28 other Republicans, and we hope to have more. We hope to have 54, and we hope to have some Democrats. And I believe there is some opportunity here because I am getting hit by [[Page S 11758]] the White House on the one side and my friend from Texas on the other. The White House says that ``the Dole bill,'' which is the leadership bill, is unacceptable. And that is pretty much what the Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm, said: It is unacceptable; only his is acceptable, which I have not seen. So maybe if that is the case, there is some room for adjustment here. I read here from a press release from conservative Governor Branstad of Iowa who said that conservative micromanagement is just as bad as liberal micromanagement. So the Governors are concerned, and we have 30 Republican Governors. We are very fortunate to have 30 Republican Governors. I am very proud of it. They represent States that have 70 percent of the population in those States, 70 percent. Every Governor supports the leadership effort, the Republican leadership effort. Every State, every Governor, including the Governor of Texas, including the Governor of New Hampshire, including the Governor Iowa, including the Governor of Arizona, to name a few early primary States. So this is an important matter that we are debating. I hope we can resolve it this week. This is not about Presidential politics. It is about welfare, about work, about opportunity, and about changing a failed system. And I want to mention what this debate is not about. I do not think this debate is about which party cares the most for those in need. It is not about which party has the biggest heart, because every Senator knows there are some Americans who need help. I do not care what bill we pass. Some Americans are going to need help, and they ought to have it. Every Member knows, and you probably know of someone in your hometown or neighborhood right here, who is struggling every day to keep their head above water. Some of us know it because we have watched our parents and our grandparents and others go through it--to do everything they possibly could to make ends meet. And I will bet half of the Members--maybe not half--I will bet a fourth of the Members in this body are in that category; not now, but when they were growing up. So it is not about which party has the most compassion. It is not about which party wants to do the most to hurt someone who finds themselves in a condition where they have to have help. It is not about that either. In my view, I think we are all pretty much in agreement around here that the system has failed. I remember being in North Carolina with the Senator from North Carolina--now a Senator, but he then was a candidate--that was his total, No. 1 issue in his campaign: welfare reform. And he has not changed his commitment. He has not changed it, and it should not change. And I know other of my colleagues who have done the same. We all know the system has failed. It has failed American taxpayers, and it has failed the Americans who we tried to serve. I think we made every good effort, and maybe we have not given the 1988 bill enough time to work. But there are a lot of people out there with no hope. That is what this debate is all about: How do we change the system? It is not how many people we dump on the street and how many children we left to go to bed hungry, or how much more we spend. I carry around in my pocket a copy of the 10th amendment. It is only 28 words in length. It simply says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to States respectively, or to the people. That is what this debate is all about, as far as I am concerned-- giving power back to the Governors and to the State legislatures, Democrats or Republicans, in either case--on the theory that they are closer to the people. There are some who think we can fix the system by just tinkering around the edges here and apply a Band-Aid here and a Band-Aid there. It is not going to work. And I think that is a prescription offered, frankly, by the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. The American people want to go forward, far beyond fine tuning. So I am proud to be joined by at least 32 of my colleagues, and I hope more, in the process, and by every one of our Republican Governors in supporting, along with Senator Packwood, S. 1120. We have been criticized because we could not get a tough bill in the Finance Committee. You have to count votes when you have tough bills around here. I have learned from experience. The bottom line is, how many votes do you have? It is not how many speeches do you make or how many times you criticize somebody else; it is, how many votes do you have? This is a legislative body. I cannot stand up and say, ``This is going to pass.'' I happen to believe that S. 1120 will change the very principles and values on which the system is based. It is going to change that attitude that ``Washington knows best.'' So what we are trying to do in our approach--certainly it can be changed, it can be improved, it can be strengthened by what the words may be, and some people may interpret those words differently and have a different idea about what improvement or strengthening or whatever might be. But we are going to combine AFDC, child programs under AFDC, and job training programs under AFDC into one block grant, and the States are free to spend the money as they see fit. I, for one, advocate food stamps as a block grant. I said that publicly in the Senate Agriculture Committee. We did not have the votes. I think it is a great idea. It would also go a long way in solving some of our formula problems in this bill, and there will be some debate on it. It may not have the votes, but we will find out. As a result of the work of the Senate Labor Committee and my colleague, Senator Kassebaum, we will consolidate and put into another single program 88 job training and training-related educational programs, including the Job Training Partnership Act and the Carl Perkins Vocational Training and Education Program. For some reason, returning power to the States makes President Clinton nervous. And he has been a Governor. Maybe he learned from other Governors who are nervous because they do not believe the Governors or the States can handle it. I hope that is not the case. But he said giving our States control will incite a ``race to the bottom.'' I do not know which States he has in mind. I hope not Kansas or Missouri or any other State represented here. I have asked the President in Burlington, VT, and would question him today, which States--rhetorically, because he was not there at the time--which States will participate in such a race? Not my State, not New York State, not Arkansas. And I want to thank the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers. He voted for Work Fair in 1988, one of a number of Democrats who joined us. Which Governor does he think does not care about the people in need? I do not know of any, Democrat or Republican. And which State legislatures cannot be trusted with the welfare of their people? I do not know of any. Maybe there are some out there. Maybe they would take this money and spend it for bridges and highways. That is not going to happen. It cannot happen. So I would also say that in our bill, the leadership bill, the Work Opportunity Act of 1995, that we want to reduce the very disturbing number of children born out of wedlock just as much as everybody else, and there are no magic solutions out there that this Senator knows about. We do not believe the best way is to do it through more Federal control. Our bill recognizes that States are better able than the Federal Government to determine what programs will best reduce illegitimacy. S. 1120 recognizes the importance of the family. It recognizes that families that stay together are far less likely to be on welfare than those that do not.

Mr. DOLE. Let me just respond this way to the Senator from Massachusetts. I said just a few moments ago--I do not think the Senator was on the floor--that was an area of concern today raised by the White House, the same general area. As I said, it is a concern raised by a number of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. We had our first meeting on Friday. And Senator Kassebaum, the chairman of the committee, who did a lot of work in that area, was present. So I can say to the Senator in all candor, it is something that we are looking at. We know there is a problem, and we are looking at it because under the present provision of S. 1120, it would be block granted to the States. But there is a great deal of concern expressed. I can only say that we are going to sit down, I think, again either tonight or tomorrow morning, to try to address that on this side. We will be happy to discuss it with the Senator from Massachusetts.

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me explain what the modification does. It modifies the bill to include the House provision regarding sanctions on those who refuse to work. While our amendment does require the States to sanction, it leaves it up to the States as to the actual reduction, and some suggest this leaves in doubt our commitment to work. There is not any doubt about our commitment to work. I have had one since 1988. But to clarify it, we say at a minimum, the States must reduce the benefits by at least the amount not worked. We have also heard from a number of Governors with reference to the second modification, and I talked this morning with Gov. Mike Leavitt, of Utah, who says we were shortsighted in this in excluding vocational education in the list of those activities permitted under our definition of work. That concern has been expressed by a number of my colleagues. Our view was, some people get in these vocational education programs and they never do work. They are in it for a year, 2 years, 3 years. So we tried to strike a balance because of the interest of many of the Governors and many of our colleagues, by permitting vocational education for up to 1 year. We do not expect it to be a career. But I do believe that some of the Governors believe they have very good vocational education programs in place and they would like to keep them.

Mr. DOLE. It was 96 to 1, with three absent. This is, really, the first day of debate. I have listened to most of it carefully. I think there is probably enough debate to last for another 2 or 3 hours, and I hope we can continue the debate. But before that, I do want to modify my amendment. I send the modification to the desk. I do not need consent to do this, it is simply a modification. I will explain what the modification does.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I know there are a number of people who desire to speak. I will not take but a few moments. I had a chance to speak briefly on Friday, and I have listened to both Senators Moynihan and Packwood and others today. It is my hope that in the end we will end up with welfare reform, or whatever we want to call it. We call ours--the word ``work" is in ours--Work Opportunity Act of 1995. On the other side, the Democratic bill, the first word is ``work.'' So that is where the emphasis is. That is where 62 percent of the American people say they have the deepest interest--they want to find work for the people. I felt the same way back in 1988. I offered, with Senator Armstrong, at the time a workfare amendment. It was the first time we had one. There was an effort to table the amendment. The vote was 49 to 41. It failed, and the first workfare amendment was adopted in 1988. It also dealt with participation rates. Some people opposed work, and it has not worked that well since, I might add. But at least there was an effort made. It turned out to be bipartisan effort after the initial skirmish. Now everybody is focused on work 8 years later. Maybe we should have been focused on it before. I offered, along with Senator Long, in 1979, a block grant on AFDC--in 1979. So, some of us have had these ideas for a long time. But I hope in the end we have a bill that will have enough support to get out of the Chamber and, hopefully, support on both sides of the aisle. We have had bipartisan support. The vote was 96 to 2?

Mr. DOLE. Sure.

Mr. DOLE. But I would ask unanimous consent that we continue debate on the bill without amendments until 5:30.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, there will be no votes tonight. We had hoped to be on the DOD authorization bill at this hour, but in order to do that we had to reach some agreement, which has not been reached yet, on the ABM and missile defense and other areas that are very complicated, very important. Our colleagues are meeting as we speak on that issue. If we can resolve that issue, we still hope to complete the DOD authorization bill this week. I think the distinguished Democratic leader wishes to speak on welfare reform, and then we will be out tonight and start on welfare 8 or 9 o'clock in the morning. There are still people on either side who have not had a chance to make opening statements so we will try to accommodate them first. But there are no votes tonight. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I know the amendment is probably several hundred pages.

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

Mr. DOLE. There is an old saying that ``everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.'' For the past several years, that saying could also apply to welfare reform. Everyone talked about it, but nobody did anything about it that really mattered. That will change Monday, when we begin serious debate. In fact, it will change today because we will introduce the substitute here in a moment. But on Monday, the Senate will begin serious debate on the Work Opportunity Act of 1995. There is a true national consensus to transform welfare from a program that does not work into one that does. It is my intention that once the Senate begins to talk about welfare reform, we will continue until we actually have done something about it. And when all the talking is done, I believe we will pass legislation that will transform welfare from a failed system into one that succeeds in providing work, hope, and opportunity for many, many Americans in need. At the center of our debate will be the legislation introduced this week by 33 Senate Republicans including the entire Senate Republican leadership. I am also very proud that our legislation has the support of a majority of America's Governors. Hopefully, it is bipartisan, but I can say that there are 30 Republican Governors out of the 50 States, and 30 Republican Governors represent 70 percent of the people in America, and every one of the 30 Republican Governors support our legislation. Our bill is based on three conservative principles: First and foremost, welfare reform should be designed and run by those closest to the problem--the States. Not by Washington, not by some faceless, nameless bureaucrat but by the States, by the State legislators and by the Governors and the people they appoint. We believe this is the key to true conservative reform. The Congress has dedicated itself to restoring the 10th amendment to the Constitution and to getting the Federal Government out of the mandate business, and States should not have to play a game of ``mother may I'' with the Federal Government when it comes to welfare. Second: Welfare programs should include a real work requirement which in no uncertain terms requires able-bodied welfare recipients to find a job rather than to stay at home or stay in a training program forever. And make no mistake about it; our legislation contains real work requirements. And third: No program with an unlimited budget will ever be made to work effectively and efficiently. Therefore, we must put a cap on welfare spending. We will be discussing those principles in greater detail during the debate. I believe the entire Senate, Republicans and Democrats, begins this debate united in many ways. We begin united in the knowledge that our current welfare system is broke, and we begin united in a commitment to fix it. We have made valiant efforts in the past. And I see my colleague from New York who is the expert on welfare and has been for some 30 years in my memory and who has made a lot of suggestions that had we followed years ago, we would not be in the trouble we are today; they were not followed. I hope that he will enlist in our efforts to make some rather radical changes. That is not to say we are not going to have disagreements. I hope it is not going to be party line. In my view, the best we can do when it comes to the Work Opportunity Act of 1995, or whatever title other Members may have on their bills, is to work together, iron out some of the problems we have, and have a big vote for change in this Senate Chamber. There will be a number of close votes during the debate, but by remembering what unites us, I feel confident we will pass a bill with wide bipartisan support. I hope this is a bill we do not have to go through the cloture exercise; that we do not have a filibuster either by amendment or by intent because it seems to me if we have--I know Senator Packwood, the chairman of the Finance Committee, will be leading the debate on this side. He is a very early riser. He will be willing to start at 7, 6, 7:30, 8 o'clock, and so there will be--I do not know how many literally--not hundreds of hours but 40, 50, 60 hours of debate, so hopefully we can move very quickly once we start on Monday. Amendment No. 2280

Mr. DOLE. I send to the desk my amendment to the underlying bill, H.R. 4 in the form of a first-degree amendment.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what is the pending business?