Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield, when I complete the point. I am willing to work with both sides to try to find a way we can get this done. If there are suggestions by the Senator from South Carolina or the leader, I certainly am very interested in that. I am not interested in any kind of a surprise action, but I am interested in trying to get some results on this which would help Senators on both sides of the aisle get the appropriations bills done. That is my only intent. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. LOTT. If I could reclaim my time, I don't know exactly what was said between the two Members, but I know there is no desire on either side to mislead. I want to make it clear that I have suggested to the chairmen of our subcommittees that we need to find a time and have a way to address this rule XVI issue. It is in the interest of the Senate. It is in the interest of both parties. But I am told that you have to get a time agreement to set up this process. If we don't do it here, then, unless we get cooperation on both sides, we may never get an opportunity to reinstate rule XVI. I will bet the Senator from South Carolina would like to see us do that. I will bet he would like to have the appropriations bills be appropriations bills. If we are going to do all of our legislating on appropriations bills, let's just get rid of the legislative committees. Let's just all get on appropriations. I would like to be on the Senator's committee. He is on Commerce, and I would enjoy serving there. I would like to be on the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill. That would work nicely. I don't think we need to do that, though. We don't want to do it. I want to make it clear, my instructions to our chairmen have been: Find a way, find a time for us to get this rule XVI reconsidered and corrected. A mistake was made. I say to the Senator from South Dakota, who is here now, the distinguished Democratic leader, I am using leader time. I was trying to explain why we haven't been having votes, what is going on. I was reviewing the bidding of why we need to make this change, and I had not attributed any quotes or impugned anybody's integrity in their absence. I was trying to get this process going forward. That is what is involved. I have been trying to find a way to get this done. I believe the Democratic leader wants to join me in getting this done. We have talked about it privately and publicly. If this is not the time, this is not the way to do it, then I am open to other times or other ways to do it. But this needs to be done so we can get our work done and not have everything in the world offered to every appropriations bill, whether it is Commerce, Transportation, Interior, or Defense. It is not something that is abused just on the Democratic side. As long as this mistake is not corrected, Senators will come in, as they are entitled to, from both sides and offer amendments involving who knows what on transportation--it could be an energy issue on transportation or on energy it could be a defense issue. We need to correct that. So that is my intent, my goal. And where we have other issues, I know my colleagues on both sides are interested in other issues. I want to say publicly what I said to Senator Daschle last night. I am going through the process to appoint conferees to juvenile justice. I am going to ask consent. If it is objected to, I will file cloture today, and we will come back and vote Monday on that issue. With regard to an amendment--or amendments, I think--with regard to agriculture and the pending problems across the Nation for our farmers, we need to address that. I will work with all Senators to find a way to do that. I think we ought to do it on the agriculture bill. I don't think we ought to do it on Commerce-State-Justice. It will mess up the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. It will delay it. Let's do it on agriculture. I am willing to work with Senators on both sides of the aisle to call up the agriculture appropriations bill and have this issue addressed. If there is a problem with it procedurally, we will work to overcome that. I don't think we ought to duck that issue; it is too important. It is important to South Dakota, it is important to Mississippi, and to people all over America. I am not interested at all in trying to duck issues. I think we ought to do them in the proper way. I have made those commitments to Senator Daschle, and I plan to keep them. It will take cooperation on both sides because we never know, as leaders, when one of our worthy Members will come swooping in with an objection. We had a unanimous consent agreement locked up and ready to sign off; in fact, it was done actually on the campaign finance issue. A Senator had not had a chance to look at it and he objected. That is his right. Basically, we had it all done. So we have to work with Senators on both sides who have particular problems. If we have one Senator who objects that we had not anticipated, that presents a problem. If we work together, we can get it done. That is what I am trying to do. I would like to get the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill done. The chairman and ranking member overcame a lot of things and got agreements on a lot of problems in that bill. But their problem is all the extraneous, nongermane legislative stuff we are going to see drift in here to be thrown up on their bill. Every appropriations bill has somewhere between 40 and 100 amendments, and half of them are legislating on an appropriations bill. Let's correct this problem. Senator Daschle has been kind enough to wait while I went through those things. I think it answers some of the questions he and his Members have. I thought it would be better to go ahead and address them. Mr. President, parliamentarily, how can we proceed at this time? I have a limit on my leader time.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. With this agreement in place, it is my hope that the bill can be completed yet this evening. I believe we have amendments that are in order, and Senator Lautenberg has one he may be able to go forward with. Work is still being done on the rule XVI issue. Additional votes will occur during this evening's session of the Senate. We usually can expect to go late into the evenings on Thursday. It looks as if that will be the case. If we can work with the managers and get this work done, this would be a very important achievement. And that, coupled with the fact that we know there is a memorial service tomorrow, we would not have to be in session tomorrow. I urge the managers to keep working and my colleagues to please work with them.

Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LOTT

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

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

Mr. LOTT. Amendments thereto would have to be protected in the same way in order for that to go forward. We can't have one amendment in order and not have amendments thereto be in order also.

Mr. LOTT. Right.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could, this just provides for a fair opportunity for debate on the restoration of the rule XVI issue that we talked about earlier today which would allow Members to have a debate on that and a vote. If rule XVI is put back into place, of course, legislation on appropriations bills will be limited, unless there is a rule by the Chair and it gets 51 votes. We also have to debate and vote on the question of scope issues coming back out of conference. When we do bring up agriculture appropriations before the August recess, there will be one amendment relating to disaster relief by Senator Daschle or his designee, and we will have an opportunity to have our amendment on the same subject. It will not relate to dairy, I make that clear.

Mr. LOTT. To the agricultural appropriations bill.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have consulted with the Democratic leader on the unanimous-consent request I am fixing to propound. I think it is a reasonable solution to deal with a couple of very important issues. I ask unanimous consent when the Senate convenes on Monday, July 26, it proceed to an original resolution, to be placed on the calendar by the majority leader immediately following the acceptance of this agreement, and the resolution be considered under the following restraints: That the resolution be limited to 3 hours for each leader or his designee; that there be one amendment in order for the Democratic leader regarding restoring the point of order on exceeding the scope of conference, which debate time shall come out of the resolution time; and that final adoption of the resolution must occur prior to close of business of the Senate on Monday, July 26; Provided further that when the Senate considers the agricultural disaster relief amendment to be offered by Senator Daschle, or his designee, to the agriculture appropriations bill, no rule XVI point of order lie against the amendment.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, now I understand the reservation that the Senator from Wisconsin has, and we can clarify that. Let me read the last paragraph again. I think it will make it clear: Provided that when the Senate considers the agricultural disaster relief amendment to be offered by Senator Daschle, or his designee, to the agricultural appropriations bill, no rule XVI point of order lie against the amendment or amendments thereto relating to the same subject.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise to address the need for prompt action on S. 761, the Millennium Digital Commerce Act. Senator Abraham has crafted a solid legislative measure that will promote continued growth in electronic commerce. The Millennium Digital Commerce Act has 11 cosponsors including Senators Wyden, Torricelli, McCain, Burns, Frist, Gorton, Brownback, Allard, Grams, Hagel, and myself. Mr. President, on June 23, almost one month ago, the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously approved and ordered S. 761 reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. This substitute is widely supported by the States, industry, and the administration. In fact, on June 22, the day before the mark-up, the Commerce Department issued a formal letter of support for this bipartisan measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Administration's letter.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Millennium Digital Commerce Act provides a baseline national framework for conducting online business to business transactions. It is vital to interstate electronic commerce because it would provide legal standing for electronic signatures on contracts and other business transactions. This common sense and timely legislation will help promote continued growth in electronic commerce. It is good for business, consumers, and the overall American economy. While more than forty States have laws on the books concerning the use of authentication technology such as electronic signatures, the States have not yet chosen to adopt the same approach. This hodgepodge of State laws will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on e-commerce. This Congress cannot and should not sit by and wait until the States coordinate this milieu of laws on electronic signatures. This delay would unnecessarily restrain the growth of our Nation's economic well- being. The Millennium Digital Commerce Act is an interim step that will help facilitate interstate and international commerce. It is a necessary precursor to state-by-state adoption of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). Mr. President, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle strongly agree that it is now time to move S. 761 to the floor. It has broad support and I hope we can work together to move this bipartisan pro-technology, pro-electronic commerce legislation forward as soon as possible.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request with regard to the appointment of conferees on the juvenile justice bill. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1501, the House juvenile justice bill, and all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 254, as passed by the Senate, except for the Feinstein amendment No. 343, as modified, be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill be advanced to third reading and passage occur, without any intervening action or debate. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, the conferees be instructed to include the above described amendment No. 343 in the conference report, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, with regard to tonight, we need to just keep going forward. Senator Reid, as usual, is doing good work. The managers, Senator Judd Gregg and Senator Hollings, have been working. I think if we will be serious--and I don't think a lot of Senators are on either side--in trying to get this completed, we still have a raft of amendments that either need to be accepted or withdrawn. I tried to see if we could do the work in the daylight, and I tried to see if we could do it on Mondays or Fridays. None of that seems to suit the Senate. I think we ought to keep going as late as it takes to finish this legislation. That way, we can get it completed. So it is at your pleasure. I live on Capitol Hill, so I will be at home watching you all on TV and wishing you the best. When the votes are ready, I will come back and vote. It is up to the Senators. Do we get rid of this long list of amendments that Senator Reid and Senator Gregg have been working on and keep going on into the night, or we can come in tomorrow. I am flexible either way. We have to get this bill done. I think we ought to keep going. I hope Senators will get serious about getting rid of some of these amendments. There is no reason we shouldn't have another vote or two and final passage. I hope we can get that done. This is not aimed at one side or the other. It is on both sides. Let's get serious and complete this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, certainly I do not object for such a reasonable request from the Senator. But I would hope there would be no further delay. We had intended to vote at 12; then we were told 12:30, 12:40, 1:15, and now it is 1:20. I know there is an effort being made to work it out, and that is very commendable, but I think we need to have a recorded vote. I will not object, but I plead with Senators, let's vote at 1:20.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I reserve the right to object--and I will object. First of all, this is the kind of motion that usually the majority leader would make, and it is my intent to do that in the near future. I think we should go to conference on this issue. The juvenile justice bill came from the Judiciary Committee. The committee had been working on it, I think, for 3 years. Senators on both sides of the aisle worked on that bill. It included a variety of Senators, including, obviously, Senator Leahy, Senator Hatch, Senator Feinstein, Senator Sessions, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Thompson, and a whole number of Senators over a period of years. It does have very important provisions in regard to how do you deal with juvenile crime, how do you try offenders, and where do you incarcerate them. It deals with the real world problems of trying to deal with juvenile crime, including security in our schools. Specifically, it provides for metal detectors at our schools. It has programs that deal with alcohol abuse, drug abuse. It has some very important amendments dealing with values in society and how we can help in that area with our young people. So I think this is legislation that should go to conference. It is my intent to move to go to conference and to appoint conferees. However, there have been some Senators who had some concerns about it both in terms of the makeup of who the conferees would be, but also I think it would be fair to say that Senator Smith of New Hampshire has indicated that he would be opposed to going to conference at this time. I have been working with him to see how that procedure could be worked out. I know most Senators don't get into some of the esoteric rules around here, but believe me, we need to try to find a way to work it out where we can get to conference. I am trying to do that. At an appropriate time, within the next 2 weeks, I will do so--if not this week, next week. The only reason I didn't do it this week is because of interminable delays by the Senate on other issues. We had the whole of last week tied up with the Patients' Bill of Rights. We didn't want to interrupt the Patients' Bill of Rights for a 3- or 4-hour process to appoint conferees. And then this week we have been dragging all day and yesterday on a question we should have done like that--reorganization of the Department of Energy. Hearings have been held on it. We had a good proposal. Instead, we have been talking and chatting here all day. Now it is 6 o'clock and we still have not gotten it done, the intelligence authorization bill, an authorization for intelligence, the CIA. Give me a break. If the Senate would like for us to act on some of these issues, then the Senate needs to find a way to quit delaying and dragging out other issues. We have appropriations bills to do. We need to get going on them. The main thing I want to assure the Senate is, I think we should go to conference. I intend for us to go to conference. If Senators on both sides will work with me and support my effort to do that, I think we will get an overwhelming vote to do that. But as is the case with Senators on both sides of the aisle, when a Senator or Senators have problems, my disposition is to try to see if we can work it out in a way that is acceptable to him or her. That is my intent. Mr. President, I make that explanation as to what is happening. We do intend to go to conference. With the cooperation of both sides of the aisle, I am sure we will go to conference. I do object.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I apologize.

Mr. LOTT. I say that is my intent. Of course, I would like to get the same commitment from the Senator from Arizona that it is his intent to live with this agreement also.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we cleared the campaign finance consent on both sides of the aisle. As far as I know, 99 Senators are prepared to agree with that. One Senator, the Senator from Michigan, came in at the last minute and objected. I will make the commitment that I will live up to this unanimous consent agreement we have entered into to call it up on no later than Tuesday, October 12, 1999. I hope we will get the entire agreement worked out. But in the meantime, we plan on going forward October 12, either way.

Mr. LOTT. That is my intent. I modify my UC request to delete the amendments by Senators Torricelli and Graham and add one by Senator Bryan regarding DOE labs.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from California be allowed to proceed while we are awaiting final confirmation on the unanimous consent request. She indicated very graciously that the minute we get ready to go on that she will yield the floor. With that understanding, I ask that she be allowed to proceed.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have a second unanimous consent request that I think has been agreed to with regard to the intelligence authorization bill, so the Senate can go forward. First of all, in view of the request that was made and the potential objection that I assume there will not be, I will withdraw that unanimous consent request at this time and then I will propound this request. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to H.R. 1555. I further ask consent that following the offering of the amendment by Senator Kyl as provided for in the consent agreement on May 27, there be up to nine relevant second-degree amendments in order for each leader, or their designees, and an additional amendment to be offered by the managers to include agreed-upon amendments. I further ask consent that the listed first-degree amendments noted below also be relevant and subject to relevant second-degree amendments: Senator Torricelli, with regard to funding disclosure; Senator Moynihan, regarding declassification; Senator Graham of Florida, relevant amendment; Senator Feinstein, regarding the drug czar; Senator Smith of New Hampshire regarding intelligence listing; again, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, regarding intelligence declassification. I further ask consent that following the disposition of the amendments, the bill be advanced to third reading and passage occur, all without any intervening action or debate, and no motions to commit or recommit be in order.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from California be allowed to proceed for not more than 5 minutes and that time not be taken out of the hour previously agreed to, delaying the 1-hour debate just a few minutes, and the vote would occur at 10:40 instead of 10:30.