Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT. I would be happy to yield, but let me finish this. I offered to have a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators to talk about any subject they chose. It could be the gas tax bill. It could be the budget resolution. It could be stock options. It could be anything. That has been objected to, which I find highly unusual. Then I offered, to try to accommodate what I thought may be a way to get the debate started and some progress to be made, to go with the Democratic alternative. Again, in terms of one-man action here, all I am trying to do is to get debate on this very important issue, the marriage penalty tax. Does the Senate want to have a debate and vote on that or not? We have been talking about it for years. Now we are up to the point where we would like to go forward. We haven't been able to get a list of amendments or enter into an agreement. But I am still hopeful we will be able to get a list of amendments and agree to proceed. But I was trying to go ahead and protect our rights to file cloture, if it is needed, on Thursday. That is being objected to. Does Senator Dorgan wish me to yield?

Mr. LOTT. I would be glad to yield to Senator Daschle.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do want to try to be brief because I want Senator Hutchison and others to be able to speak. I have been having some discussions with Senator Daschle trying to work out an agreement as to how to proceed on amendments. We are going to continue to do that. We had asked for a list, a description of the amendments they might have in mind. We don't have that yet. I assume it is just a physical problem for right now. We will continue to discuss that and see if there is a way we can come to an agreement that will allow us to vitiate cloture, but we need to go on with the debate. We have Senators here ready to speak. We have the chairman of the committee here who would like to get on record on this issue. So we could go ahead and have cloture filed so, if necessary, we would have a vote on cloture on Thursday, but we could go ahead then with debate only. While we are doing that, we can continue to have discussions about how we can work out an agreement. Let me emphasize again, I think we can work out an agreement that would allow for a substitute to be offered, or substitutes for that matter, that are relevant to the marriage tax penalty. I understand these amendments may relate to Medicaid. They may relate to prescription drugs. It may be a complete prescription drug proposal. I don't know how that would be relevant or how we would have time to evaluate that. I fear we are headed off down a trail that is not in line with what I had offered or hoped for. I repeat, substitutes or relevant marriage penalty elimination amendments, we can work that out. I don't want to say what we won't do at this point. I will say we are going to go forward. We will continue to try to work to get a fair agreement. In the end, this is the point: For 10 years we have talked about the unfairness of the marriage penalty tax. Ever since the Senator from Texas has been in the Senate--now for 6 years--she has been relentless on the subject. So we are going to have a vote on the marriage penalty tax, and we are going to see who is for eliminating it and who is not. I hope we can do it without getting tangled up in procedural questions. If necessary, we will have a vote on cloture and we will know where we are. I hope we will have the votes on cloture to cut off the filibuster and then move on to the final vote. For now, I want us to make sure we get time this afternoon to have a good debate on this issue, and so I will go ahead and go through this process. I am still hopeful we can reach agreement on the number of amendments. It could be as many as three or four, it could be six, all dealing with the marriage tax penalty or closely relevant issues. We will keep working on that. Amendment No. 3090 (Purpose: To provide a committee amendment)

Mr. LOTT. I now send to the desk an amendment on behalf of the Finance Committee.

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know Senator Daschle wasn't on the floor. I was hoping we could maybe mark a little time until he got here. He may not be aware that we asked when we filed the cloture that the mandatory quorum under the rule be waived and the bill be pending for debate only. And there was objection to that. Then I suggested a period for the transaction of morning business because there are Senators who may want to speak on this or any other subject. That was objected to. Then I suggested we go to the Democratic substitute offered by Senator Moynihan and others and begin debate on that, which I thought was a good usage of time; It didn't foreclose other amendments being offered or agreed to at a later point. Perhaps others in his stead were trying to make a point. But my point is that I want us to have time for debate. I want us to use this afternoon and tomorrow. For those who may not be aware, when I file cloture, all I am doing is protecting our right to have a vote on ending the filibuster, which doesn't ripen for 2 days. We could and would be having debate this afternoon and all day Wednesday. If we work out an agreement on a list of amendments, we could vitiate that at any time. I note we have already done that several times this year. In fact, in the first of the year we vitiated the cloture I had filed on the education savings account legislation, as I recall. Several times we have done it as a protection to make sure we get a vote before the week's end. But we wound up working something out and thought we didn't need to do it. I am hoping that is what will happen here. But also, if I don't do it now this afternoon, since we haven't gotten a list of the amendments, this is not a surprise. It has been around a long time. Everybody knew the marriage tax penalty would be coming up this week. The Finance Committee marked it up a couple weeks ago. Any Member who had or has amendments probably had an idea of what they wanted to do. We have not asked to be given the final amendment, but to be given at least some descriptive paragraph as to what the amendments might do before we enter into an agreement. If I didn't file cloture and we went out of session Thursday night, if we completed our business, completed the stock options bill and completed the budget resolution conference report and went out Thursday night, if I didn't file cloture now but waited until tomorrow, if we couldn't reach an agreement, then the marriage penalty issue would not have come up until after the recess. I worked on my income tax last night and I am not in a happy mood about taxes. I know a lot of other people, coming up on April 15, would like to know the marriage tax penalty at last will be coming to an end in whatever form, either by a formula developed by the Finance Committee majority, Senator Moynihan, or others. I emphasize for those who may not be aware of all the Senate rules, we have to file cloture now to be assured to have a vote on that by Thursday. I will work with Senator Daschle. We have worked out some pretty thorny issues and some knots in the past that looked as if they were unsolvable and we were able to agree and move to a final conclusion. I hope we can do that. We do not want to get far afield and start debating Medicaid issues, Medicaid reforms, which the Finance Committee has never considered--or somebody suggested a complete prescription drug package--without overall Medicare reform and without looking at the details of that package. I understand it may be a pretty detailed package, but the amendment may not be ready. How can we possibly agree to an amendment when we are not even sure of its structure, let alone what the details are. Maybe by tomorrow that amendment will be available and we can take a look at it and other amendments and maybe come to an agreement to get to a conclusion sometime tomorrow during the day, tomorrow night, or Thursday. Senator Hutchison has been very patiently waiting. She has put a lot into this. I yield for a question or comment.

Mr. LOTT. If we can't get an agreement to have consideration of amendments or to have general debate or to have a morning business opportunity, the only other option I have now is to move to close the Senate for the day. I hope we can find some way to work that out.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond to Senator Reid's comments and will yield further to Senator Hutchison, I believe just last week we had the budget resolution, and we had well over 100 amendments. Some of them were voted on, some of them were accepted, some of them were voted on in the vote-arama. A number of them didn't relate to the budget for the year. Everything imaginable was thrown in. I don't think Senators have felt as if they haven't had a chance to offer amendments on any kind of extraneous matter. This issue of the marriage tax penalty is clear and understandable: Are Members for it or against it? I fear my colleagues on the Democratic side are trying to change the subject. I cannot believe they don't want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let's have a full debate, let's have amendments on the marriage penalty. But to get off into every other possible issue as a way to try to distract attention from doing what the American people support overwhelmingly, I don't understand that. I think what we are trying to do makes good, common sense. Let's have a full debate on the issue. Let's have relevant amendments. There are a lot of amendments that could be construed as being relevant. I remember the Democrats came up with a way to offer a gun amendment to the education savings account, as I recall. They went way around the corner to get it done, but we had a vote on it, and we moved on. Senator Hutchison wants to comment or ask a question.

Mr. LOTT. I can understand the Senator's frustration. Also, I am sure he can understand that, as the majority leader, I have to pay attention to the schedule, the time that is available, and the fact that there are, I think, an overwhelming number of Americans--and Senators--who would like to get this marriage tax penalty removed from the Tax Code. This is the week we can do it. When we come back, we will have other important issues to deal with: The agriculture sanctions issue; we have the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; we have appropriations bills; we have the China permanent trade status--we have a long list of things we need to try to do. We have not said it has to be three or six, but we are saying we would like to see what we are talking about.

Mr. LOTT. What is really at stake is, once again, we want to get the marriage tax penalty eliminated. We can talk schedules, procedures, rules, quorums, and all the other stuff into which the Senate gets caught. On occasion, I hear from my mother. She says: You know, what is all that stuff you all talk about up there, all those rules and all the extraneous things? Get to the point. The point is, we want to get rid of the marriage tax penalty. Let's see if we can find a way to do that this week.

Mr. LOTT. Can we get agreement we can proceed on the bill and all relevant amendments to that bill? To the American people, and I think to most Senators, that makes good sense, to have the requirement that it be relevant to a marriage tax penalty. Again, I have not said we could not go with something that moves afield from that. All I am saying is we would like to see what we are talking about and know it is fair, we have thought it out, and the committee of jurisdiction has had an opportunity to review it. So that is what I am trying to work out. Senator Daschle has been patiently waiting while we have exchanged pleasantries. I must say this. I, a little bit, kind of enjoy finding someone else getting frustrated trying to find a way to make this move forward. I know how you feel. I yield.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I just remind my colleagues, tomorrow is Wednesday and the next day is Thursday. If we do not get the marriage tax penalty done in those 2 days, then it will be pending until after tax day, April 15, when we come back. That may be all right. Let me say we are going to eliminate the marriage tax penalty this year. We are going to do it on this day, and this week, or we will do it later and we will do it with another procedure. We have talked about getting this done too long and haven't gotten it done. So we are going to come back to this one repeatedly this year. But it would be, I think, very helpful to the people involved and to all of us if we could find a way to go ahead and do it this way.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond to that particular point, it is a common practice around here, as I am sure the Senator knows, to give the courtesy of identifying what amendments we have and even the amendments. We are not asking to see the amendments. We are asking to have some idea of the general parameters of what is being proposed. I do not believe that is asking too much. We do that for each other. Senator Daschle wants to see what we want to offer, and we want to see what you want to offer. That is a common practice around here.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator proceed to Calendar No. 437, H.R. 6, the marriage penalty tax repeal bill, and that the motion to proceed be agreed to, that the bill be subject to debate only, equally divided, and at 4 p.m. the majority leader be recognized.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will briefly explain what we have in mind, and then I believe Senator Inhofe has some comments he wants to make on another issue before we go to the actual debate on the marriage tax penalty. Senator Daschle and I have been talking. As a result of the caucus luncheon, the Democrats have some amendments they want to have made in order. If they are relevant or if they are close to being relevant in a way we can have debate and votes on them, we would like to work out an agreement to do that. I have asked him to provide me a list of those amendments so we can make sure we understand what they are and have a chance to assess their relevancy. It is preferable we do that rather than filing cloture and having a cloture vote. I believe the American people think it is time to quit talking about the marriage tax penalty and do something about it. I know Senator Moynihan has a different approach as to how to deal with it. It is credible. We have looked at that and debated it in the Finance Committee. Certainly, that substitute or other substitutes should be offered. Rather than just mark time and not accomplishing anything, this will put us into general debate on the marriage tax penalty until 4 p.m. Then in an hour, we will have a chance to get an agreement on how to proceed. I want us to debate this issue, fully understand the ramifications of what the Finance Committee reported out, have debate on the amendments and vote on those amendments and complete this legislation. The American people believe it is time we do this. I cannot help remembering what we did on the Social Security earnings test. We made in order a couple of amendments. We had a good debate, and we had a vote or two and passed it unanimously. I believe most Members of the Senate, if not all, realize there are inequities with the marriage tax penalty and we should do something about it. I want to facilitate getting to that point. The House has acted overwhelmingly. We are going to see if we can work out an accommodation and obtain a UC agreement as to how to proceed. If I need to, I will take leader time to make this brief comment on the bill on which we just voted. The Senate has spoken, although I note there were 43 Senators who thought there should be some sort of fuels tax holiday so that working Americans could have some relief. I emphasize, this issue is not over. I fear gasoline prices are going to go up. The fact is, we are still dependent, and going to be even more dependent, on foreign oil, mostly OPEC oil, for 55 percent or more of our needs. We need to do something. We do not have an adequate energy policy, if there is one at all. This issue will not go away. My comment to those who voted against it on both sides is: if not this, what? And if not now, when are we going to do something about our energy dependence on foreign oil? There is a danger here, and we need to find a way to address it. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield, we are going ahead with general debate on the marriage tax penalty until 4 o'clock with the time equally divided.

Mr. LOTT. It was in the request. The time will be equally divided.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Tomorrow morning, there will be a period of morning business until noon. It is my hope we can reach agreement for the consideration of this very important marriage tax penalty issue.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Hutchison of Texas, Senator Fitzgerald, Senator Cleland, Senator Kyl, for debate or bill introduction only.

Mr. LOTT. Senators Hutchison of Texas, Senator Fitzgerald, Senator Cleland, Senator Kyl, for debate or bill introduction only.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn to the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, April 12, 2000. I further ask consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until the hour of 12 noon, with Senators permitted to speak up to 5 minutes, with the following exceptions: Senators Roberts and Cleland in control of up to 2 hours, from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m. I will note, that is a request from these two Senators, one a Republican and one a Democrat, that will take a major portion of the morning on a very important national security discussion, so half of the day tomorrow will go for that request which has been pending for at least a week; Senator Hagel for 15 minutes; Senators Craig and Grams for 15 minutes total; Senator Hutchinson for 10 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that following morning business, the majority leader be recognized.