Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. GREGG. I suggest it might be acceptable to the Senator from Tennessee, because the Senator from South Carolina does have concerns that haven't been addressed and he has to get information, maybe we can set this amendment aside and move on to the Bumpers amendment. We are going to have votes at 9:30. Prior to the 9:30 period, if the Senator from South Carolina feels he needs to come back for further debate, we can go to it at that time.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, so my colleagues know where we stand--and I certainly thank the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Idaho for their timely discussion of what was a fairly complicated issue; both Senator Hollings and I greatly appreciate their courtesy in moving debate along--we are now waiting for Senator Thompson, who I understand is on the way to the floor to offer his amendment. Then we will go to Senator Bumpers. We will probably be skipping over the amendment by Senator Nickles. As I understand it, he is not available until probably 9 or 9:15. So we will go to Senator Feingold after Senator Bumpers. That is the order we are proceeding under, under the previous unanimous consent. As soon as Senator Thompson arrives, we shall take up his amendment. I make a point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent, on both the Craig amendment and the Durbin amendment, the yeas and nays be ordered.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois be allowed to lay down his first-degree amendment, that that then be laid aside and the Senator from Idaho be immediately recognized to offer a first-degree amendment relative to firearms enforcement. Further, I ask there be 40 minutes for debate on both the Durbin and Craig amendments combined, to be equally divided between Senator Craig and Senator Durbin, with no second-degree amendments in order to either amendment, and following the conclusion or the yielding back of time, pursuant to our previous unanimous consent request, a vote will occur at or about 9:30 in relation to the Craig amendment, to be followed immediately by a vote on or in relation to the Durbin amendment.

Mr. GREGG. I think we will wait for Senator McCain to return to determine whether or not we need that.

Mr. GREGG. Do you wish to have the yeas and nays?

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senators from Virginia for their prompt and concise debate. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I simply state that the next series of amendments with rollcalls will be at 9:30 this evening.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the next amendments in order, subject to relevant second degrees, and that following debate, each amendment be laid aside to reoccur at 9:30 this evening in a stacked sequence in the order in which they were debated. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes prior to each vote for closing remarks. The amendments are: The pending McCain amendment, a Durbin amendment on guns, a Thompson amendment on federalism, a Bumpers amendment on telephone privacy, a Nickles amendment on defenders, a Feingold amendment on child exploitation, and a Kyl-Craig amendment on gaming.

Mr. GREGG. And the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. GREGG. I would like to reach a time agreement, if possible. I understand the Senator from Utah wishes to speak for about 10 minutes?

Mr. GREGG. There is no time agreement yet, but I would ask unanimous consent there be half an hour.

Mr. GREGG. Under the agreement which we have been talking about, we will now turn to the Senator from Arizona for an amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the only remaining first-degree amendments in order and subject to relevant second-degrees; that following the disposition of the below listed amendments the bill be advanced to third reading, and a vote occur on passage of the bill as amended. I further ask that following the vote on the Senate bill, the bill remain at the desk awaiting receipt of the House companion bill, all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 2260 be inserted, the bill be advanced to third reading and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. I further ask that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint the following conferees on the part of the Senate: Gregg, Stevens, Domenici, McConnell, Hutchison of Texas, Campbell, Cochran, Hollings, Inouye, Bumpers, Lott, Mikulski, and Byrd. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate bill be indefinitely postponed. I submit the list of amendments.

Mr. GREGG. I suggest we yield back all time and go to a vote.

Mr. GREGG. How much time does the Democratic side have?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask that Senator Murkowski be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. GREGG. No, we are not using Social Security. If I may restate the point, CBO numbers, which came out on July 15, showed fairly definitively that there is a surplus, independent of the Social Security trust fund, of approximately $169 billion. The Senator may not accept those numbers. He may not like those numbers. He may feel those numbers are inaccurately, inappropriately arrived at. But those are the numbers which we have been given. Which leads to the secondary point, because the numbers are really almost irrelevant to the debate. It leads to the secondary point here, which is the key point, which is that there is a potential to give the American taxpayers a tax cut. Let's give it to them. Let's lock in the statement, ``We want to give a tax cut, if there is a surplus in excess of what we need to benefit the Social Security system and make it solvent.'' Why would we walk away from the opportunity to say to the American taxpayer, ``If we can make the Social Security system solvent, after we have done that, if we have extra money, we are going to give you a tax cut?'' Why would we ever want to walk away from such a statement? I think it is a fairly reasonable statement, a clear statement, concise statement, unlike the statement from the Democratic leadership which is totally--which is very hard to understand because it uses terms like ``reserve,'' uses terms like ``fiscal year 1999 budget legislation,'' both of which are terms of art and which are very hard to understand, would be very hard to even get a legal definition of, much less a commonsense definition of. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.