Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. I do not believe I am able to do that, although I do not know of any reason that would be used. But I think at this point I would not be inclined to waive a point of order.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk to the pending Feinstein amendment.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I just offered the Kennedy health care bill, the identical text of amendment No. 703, which was offered by Senator Dorgan to the agriculture appropriations bill. I hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will let this go forward so that we can take appropriate action. I wanted to explain that. If the Senator insists, the reading can continue.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 12 noon on Monday, June 28. I further ask that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate begin a period of morning business with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each until the hour of 1 p.m.

Mr. LOTT. Notwithstanding the adjournment of the Senate, I ask consent that Senators be allowed to file first-degree amendments until 1 p.m. tomorrow.

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 at the conclusion of remarks by the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Kerrey.

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senate has a responsibility, obviously, to do the people's business. Up until a couple of days ago, we were doing pretty good this year. We had already moved four appropriations bills. We had taken up a number of important issues including the Y2K liability bill, the financial services modernization, the national missile defense bill, education. We were moving right along. But all of a sudden a couple of days ago that stopped. Why is that? It is because the Democrats--Senator Kennedy, Senator Daschle, Senator Feinstein, and others--want to offer an unrelated bill to agriculture appropriations. That bill is the Patients' Bill of Rights. Going back to last fall, we have talked many times about finding a way to have that legislation considered, trying to come up with some timeframe that is fair to all. Consistently we have had requests for many amendments. I don't know, I think it started off with the Democrats saying they had to have 40 amendments. I believe at some point it got down to 20, although it is not clear to me they would even agree to limit it to 20. On the other hand, we have argued we have a good Patients' Bill of Rights bill, one that was developed by a task force chaired by Senator Nickles which included Senator Collins, Dr. Bill Frist, Senator Santorum, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Roth. A really good group worked very hard to come up with a good bill, with some provisions for protections of patients' rights, with provisions for an appeals process when there is a disagreement with a decision within a managed care facility, both internally and externally. It is a good bill. We are prepared to vote on that. The Democrats, on the other hand, have a bill of their own that takes a very different approach, and a big part of it is lawsuits will be the final arbiter on how these health decisions will be made. We say if you have a good package, let's vote on yours. We will vote on ours. This week we, in effect, did that. We voted not to table our proposal, and we voted to table the underlying Kennedy amendment. We have tried very hard to come up with a way for this to be considered without it becoming an obstruction to the people's business. What is the people's business? The bill pending is the agriculture appropriations bill, $60.7 billion for the farmers in America. But it goes beyond just farmers. It also includes such programs as food stamps, women, infants, children, school breakfast, and lunch programs. It is a broad bill and an important bill. At a time when our farmers have lost markets and are having a tough time, we are tied up and delaying the agriculture appropriations bill with an unrelated measure. In addition to that, we have ready for consideration the transportation appropriations bill, the State-Justice-Commerce appropriations bill, the foreign operations appropriations bill, and I believe in short order the Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill. In addition to that, we have very important legislation such as the intelligence authorization bill we need to have considered, now that we have passed the defense authorization and appropriations bills. We have the very critical question of how are we going to deal with the nuclear espionage at our labs around the country. We have an important proposal pending on that. We have several very important appropriations bills that we need to move. They are the people's business. The point is, we want to have our other measure considered. We have gone back and forth. Senator Daschle and I have worked through the last 36 hours or so. We have gone back and forth with alternative suggestions. We started out 2 nights ago saying maybe we can do it this Wednesday and Thursday and be through with it Thursday night. That did not get very far. Then we said, how about if we take it up July 12 when we come back from the recess and we will spend that Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and by the close of business on Thursday we will have completed this debate. Maybe some people say that is not enough time. That is a pretty long period of time for debate on a legislative measure, and it is a long period of time when you take into consideration the other work that we really must do for the people in passing appropriations bills, in complying with the budget resolution, and the reconciliation bill to allow us to return some of the tax overpayment to the working people of this country. That is a long period of time in the middle of the summer when our focus really needs to be on considering the appropriations bills that provide what the people in this country need from their Government, if you are convinced these appropriations bills do that. We talk about agriculture and transportation. You can certainly argue that. Foreign operations, here is a time when we have very delicate relations around the world. We just passed the State Department authorization bill after about 3 years of trying. It seems now we need to provide the funds that go along with that. So we went back and forth. I want to read the latest iteration as of 6:30 last night, June 23, of what we offered to try to get this matter considered by itself and in a reasonable period of time. Apparently, for a variety of reasons, we have not been able to get this agreed to or worked out: I ask unanimous consent---- I am not asking this, I am just reading the consent request because it is obvious there would be objection to it---- that the text of amendment No. 703, as modified, or 702-- That would be either the Kennedy version or the Republican version-- be introduced by the majority leader, or his designee, and become the pending business at 1 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 1999, with a vote occurring on final passage at the close of business Thursday, July 15, and the bill be subject to the following agreement: That all amendments in order to the bill be relevant to the subject of amendment No. 703 or 702 or health care tax cuts, and all first-degree amendments be offered in an alternating fashion, and all first and second- degree amendments be limited to 2 hours each to be equally divided in the usual form. Two hours for the first-degree amendment; 2 hours for the second- degree amendment. I don't know quite what that adds up to over a period of a week, but a lot of amendments could be considered under that period of time. I think 2 hours is a reasonable period of time when you take into consideration the significance of some of the issues that would be debated. In some instances it would not take 2 hours; it might not take 30 minutes. I assume that somebody is going to offer an amendment both sides will like, and we will say: Yes, we'll take that. So it would not take that long. I further ask consent that second degree amendments be limited to 1 second degree amendment per side, with no motions to commit or recommit in order, or any other act with regard to the amendments in order, and that just prior to third reading of the bill, it be in order for the majority leader, or his designee, to offer a final amendment, with no second degree amendments in order. I further ask consent that following passage of the bill, that should the bill, upon passage, contain any revenue blue slip matter that the bill remain at the desk and that when the Senate receives the House companion bill, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of the Senate passed bill be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill as amended be passed, [and] the Senate insist on its amendment. . . . Very simply, that is to avoid the blue slip problem with the House of Representatives of a measure we pass that has revenue in it and to make sure this matter does not just die aborning here. I further ask consent that no other amendments relative to the Patients' Bill of Rights be in order, for the remainder of the first session of the 106th Congress. Once again, let's have the debate, have the amendments. Let's have a vote--win or lose, whichever side. Then you move on. I further ask consent that at any time on Thursday, July 15, it be in order for the Majority Leader, if he deems necessary, to offer a comprehensive amendment containing several provisions, that the amendments/titles therein be considered en bloc and a vote occur on or in relation to that amendment, with no second degree amendments in order, prior to 3rd reading and the offering of the last amendment by the Majority Leader. That is traditionally the way it has happened. The majority leader-- the majority gets to offer the last amendment or substitute, for that matter. Finally, [we] announce . . . the two Leaders [will work together to agree] to pass three to five of the remaining appropriations bills available, prior to the July 4th Recess. And we listed the appropriations bills. I wanted to make sure everybody knew that--both the Democrats and Republicans, and members of the media, and our constituency--because I think it is a fair proposal. Basically, it is 4 days on this subject, with designated periods of time, with an end date involved--Thursday, July 15. Amendments could be offered. I do not know how many that would provide for, but I presume as many as 16, maybe more, depending on how long it takes on some of them and how much time would be yielded back. Let me just say, there is not 100-percent agreement on our side of the aisle that we should do this. But at some point you have to come to an agreement of how you proceed and how you get an issue considered, how you get it voted on. This seemed fair to me. Frankly, I do not even like the idea of putting time limits on these amendments. I think we ought to have a jump ball, call it up on Monday, the 12th, and offer amendments. Let's debate them and vote and, when we get to the 15th and have final passage. But there was a feeling, to some degree on both sides, that we ought to have some time limit specified in that agreement. I think we are dealing here with sort of a Molotov minuet. Everything we have tried to do, we are being met with: No. Nyet. We can't do that. No. We can't do something else. I began to wonder, do we want to address this issue or do we just want the issue? I have been through that before. I can remember we had the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill a few years ago--3 years ago--and as long as everybody was all dug in and saying, we are not going to consider that, we are not going to do this and not going to do that, nothing happened. Once we finally said, we are going to do it, we did it and moved on. I think that is what we ought to do--move on here, have a focused debate, have some amendments, vote on them, and be done with it. Where are we at this particular time? We do have pending, I guess, an amendment by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, that she feels very strongly about. I would like to get a time agreement on that amendment and have it considered and vote on it and move on. We have a Frist second-degree amendment by Senator Frist from Tennessee that will be offered. But I also should make this point: All of this is legislating on appropriations bills. All of that is possible under the rules because of a ruling that occurred a few years ago which allows this sort of legislating on appropriations bills. I have been heckled in the past: ``We ought to change that,'' on the Democratic side and on the Republican side. And I think we should. People on both sides of the aisle might say: Wait a minute, that is the only way I can get my legislation considered. Look, that is why we have authorization bills. We--both sides--abuse this. We ought to stop it. That is what contributes to the difficulty we have in passing appropriations bills now every year, because we are busy legislating things on appropriations bills that we might not be able to get through a committee or might not be able to get on an authorization bill. Somebody said: Well, how would we do it? A novel idea: Go back and do it the way we always did it, on authorization bills, not on appropriations bills. I think you could argue back and forth whether that benefits the majority or the minority. I do not think we ought to get into that on something such as this. It is the right thing to do in eliminating this procedure. We should not be having legislation, a whole bill, put on the agriculture appropriations bill. So that is sort of where we are. I propose we go forward and try to get some indication of where the votes are, have some debate on the point of order or legislation on appropriations bills, have the debate on the Feinstein amendment, have some debate on the Frist amendment, and then let's have some votes and see where we are. But I think we need to make up our minds: Are we just going to say no or are we going to move forward? We could still do a lot of work next week that would be in the people's interests. Last week we passed six bills and made a big start on State Department authorization. We can do that next week. We could go out next week having passed three or four appropriations bills, perhaps the intelligence authorization bill, and several nominations. We are now beginning to have some nominations come on to the calendar out of the Commerce Committee and out of the Judiciary Committee and out of the Foreign Relations Committee. In fact, I saw we had about 8 or 10 that came on last night, and more have come on. We could wind up with a burst of activity that would serve the Senate well. It would serve the American people well. Quite frankly, Senator Daschle and I like to do that, because we agreed a long time ago, when you do your work, everybody wins, but when you dig in and just find ways to continue the Molotov minuet and say no, everybody loses. So I think we ought to move forward. I urge my colleagues on the Democratic side to consider how we can get this done. Let's get this agreement worked out, and let's move on with these very important appropriations bills. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the presence of absent Senators.

Mr. LOTT. I don't believe there was objection.

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

Mr. LOTT. I do have some work I need to do.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have some procedures I would like to go through, and then we will put in a time for morning business, and then Senators can engage on their own. I think we should go on with the people's business of passing our appropriations bills. I will continue to work with Senator Daschle and all of those who are interested in trying to see if we can come up with some agreement to handle a Patients' Bill of Rights separately and aside from the appropriations bills in a specified period of time and an acceptable way. That is obviously not easy. But we have found solutions to complicated problems before. Hopefully, we can find one this time. Cloture Motion

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, I think it is important that I take a minute to sort of review the bidding as to what has been going on. There have been a number of discussions as to how to proceed with the pending agriculture appropriations bill, as well as the two pending Patients' Bill of Rights proposals. Senator Daschle and I talked numerous times throughout the day. At one point, beginning on Tuesday night, we talked about trying to find a way to take the Patients' Bill of Rights issues up and deal with them on Wednesday and Thursday. We could not quite get that approved. Then a proposal was made to go ahead and go forward with the appropriations bills and maybe some other legislative issues that could be cleared and to take up the Patients' Bill of Rights issue on Monday, July 12, when we come back from the recess, and spend until the close of business that week, Thursday, July 15, on the Patients' Bill of Rights issue. Originally, I was thinking it would just be sort of a jump ball; we would get started. We would go forward, no limits on amendments, no limits on time, but understanding everybody had to be fair with each other. There should not be an attempt on this side to block a reasonable number of amendments. Neither should there be an attempt on the other side to say we have to have 18 or 26 or 35 or any requisite number of amendments but just do like we do legislative bills--we take them up and go forward. Concerns developed on both sides of the aisle, and we modified that proposal two or three times. As of late last night, about 6, we were still exchanging ideas. So we do not have a finalized agreement. I think progress has been made toward finding a way to complete action on the pending bill; that is, the underlying bill, the appropriations bill, as well as other important appropriation bills. We should be able to find a way to consider the Patients' Bill of Rights issue, because there is belief, I think on both sides, that there are some areas that need to be addressed. There are some rights that need to be protected. There should be some way to appeal decisions within HMOs. Once we make up our minds that we will get together and work through it, I think we will be able to do that. We can continue trying to negotiate, which I am always willing to do, or we can just go ahead and go forward and see what happens. Keep in mind that this Patients' Bill of Rights issue, or pieces of it, would be on the agriculture appropriations bill, which is not the normal place we would want it. Also, I presume it won't be there when the appropriations bill comes back. So I do not quite understand why we would be doing it this way. To enable us to negotiate, I will ask for a period of morning business, but I would like to discuss that momentarily with Senator Daschle and leadership on both sides. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to express our appreciation to the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, for his effort. The fact is that the Rules Committee moved swiftly on the resolution. I think I should note for the record that the House of Representatives started this practice some years ago, and it was instigated by my former colleague in the House, Sonny Montgomery. They have been doing it for a number of years, and I think it is most appropriate that we begin to do the same thing in the Senate.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I observe that for the first time, I presume, in history we have just opened the session of the Senate with the Pledge of Allegiance led by our most esteemed President pro tempore. I yield for some brief comments on that to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to S. 1143, and I send a cloture motion to the desk on the transportation appropriations bill.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. In order to continue working to find a way to handle these appropriation bills, particularly the underlying bill, the agriculture bill, and the Patients' Bill of Rights, I now ask that there be a period of morning business until 10:30 today, with the time equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. LOTT. As always, we will notify Senators as to when votes are scheduled, and we will now have the opportunity for Senators who are on the floor and wish to speak to do so while we continue negotiations. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. That we go to morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. So those four cloture votes will occur in sequence beginning at 5:30 on Monday.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, on Monday the Senate will convene at 12 and we will have a period of morning business until 1. At 1 o'clock we will resume consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill. Under a previous order, the Senate will begin a series of up to four stacked votes at 5:30 on Monday. Those votes will be on invoking cloture on the agriculture appropriations bill, followed by a cloture motion to proceed to the transportation appropriations bill, a cloture motion to proceed to the Commerce, Justice, and State Department appropriations bill, and cloture on the motion to proceed to foreign operations appropriations. Therefore, Senators can expect the first vote on Monday to begin at 5:30.