Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. He still would have priority recognition under the agreement and under the procedures anyway, but also under the agreement that was included. Both sides of this issue don't want to lose their positions. But this will allow us to do these two amendments and to do the supplemental, and then that will be the pending issue. We know we have to find a way to get to a conclusion. I want to emphasize now that we will do the supplemental after those first 2 votes.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request I would like to propound. First, obviously, we have had the last vote for the night. I thank the managers of the bill for their diligent efforts. I thank Senator Reid for his efforts, and Senator Ashcroft, and Senator Frist, and Senator Harkin, and Senator Lautenberg, who have all been willing to at least make concessions so that we can make progress. Senator Daschle and I appreciate that. The consent we will ask would provide for two amendments to be brought up in the morning, and it would be the Gordon Smith/Jeffords amendment, followed by the Lautenberg amendment, with a vote on both of those at 10:30. The pending business is still the Harkin amendment, but we would intend at that time to go to the supplemental bill. We are going to try to get a 2-hour time agreement on that. When that is over, we will be back where we stood with the Frist-Ashcroft amendment. That summarizes the agreement. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the Gordon Smith/Jeffords amendment there be 60 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form on the Gordon Smith amendment and amendment No. 362, the Lautenberg amendment, to run concurrently beginning at 9:30 a.m. Thursday, and all other provisions of the consent agreement of May 14 remain in place and the amendment be laid down tonight prior to the close of Senate business. I further ask consent that the vote occur on the Gordon Smith- Jeffords amendment just prior to the vote on amendment 362, under the same time restraints and provisions as provided above. I further ask that the Senate resume amendment No. 355 immediately following the disposition of amendment No. 362.

Mr. LOTT. As I told the Senator from Iowa--and I believe Senator Frist has been on the floor most of the time--this is in no way intended or will not disadvantage or eliminate this amendment. It will just set it aside so we can make some progress on amendments where time agreements are already locked in. We will have votes on those amendments at the end of those agreed-to times.

Mr. LOTT. Yes.

Mr. LOTT. It would be the usual agreement of no second-degrees prior to a vote on the motion to table.

Mr. LOTT. Let me make it clear at the beginning, Mr. President, we don't want to in any way dispossess the Senator from Iowa from his opportunity to be further heard, if he so desires, on his position with regard to the Ashcroft-Frist amendment. I ask in this agreement that that discussion be set aside and we go to four other amendments and have the debate and stacked votes on those amendments. I will state the agreement which Senator Daschle had a chance to review. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and the Senate proceed immediately to the managers' package, and following that amendment, the following amendments be considered for votes in the following sequence, under time agreements where noted, in the usual form. I want to emphasize, the managers' package would go first; there would be some description of that. We understand that would probably not require a recorded vote. I further ask consent that the amendments be voted in the order listed below, with 2 minutes for debate prior to each vote for explanation. In other words, we will have 2 hours of debate on the first one, then go to the other amendments, but before the actual votes occur there will be 2 minutes for final explanation, and that all provisions of the consent agreement of May 14 be in place.

Mr. LOTT. It was suggested. This is not taking everything in the exact order. We have been moving the order around back and forth since Monday. For instance, the managers' amendment--usually you don't do that until the last thing. In a show of good faith, an indication from Senator Leahy was that Senators would like to have that done and see what is in it. We would put that first in the pecking order, which would not be the way it is always done, but it would be constructive. Then Lautenberg, I think, would be the next pending thing. And these others, I am not sure of the exact order they are in, but I propose that we do them that way so we can move forward.

Mr. LOTT. Well, 60 votes--it was suggested.

Mr. LOTT. I think everybody is trying in good faith to find a way to deal with this issue and move on. I thought that idea just proposed might work, but it looks as if that would be objected to. What I would like to propose as an alternative--and it is being typed up now, and we want both sides to look at it--is that we go forward. We set aside the pending amendment, and we go forward with a series of votes, including probably the managers' package, which a lot of people have been interested in and concerned about. They would be able to see what it was. And then go to the Lautenberg amendment and have a vote. Then go to a Smith-Jeffords amendment and have a vote. Then go to Wellstone and have a vote, and then to a McConnell. So we would have a series of stacked votes while we continue to work to see how we can resolve other outstanding issues. But rather than just continuing to talk back and forth without making progress, looking at the hour here, if we could have a series of, I believe it would be five votes--six votes now--I think that would be one way to give us time so we could make progress and give us time to continue to work on these other issues.

Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator from Iowa yield to me?

Mr. LOTT. Who has the floor?

Mr. LOTT. Right. We are having this typed up now. We will get copies to the managers on both sides and the leadership. But I believe this is one way to keep the bill going. We have had a good lengthy discussion today, and there is a fundamental disagreement on this. At some point, I hope the Senator from Iowa--like on Lautenberg and on these others, we worked through this without second-degreeing, without obstructing. You all have had some amendments you don't like, and we have had a few amendments we don't like, but in the end you vote. If you win, you win; if you lose, you lose. It still has to go to conference and all that. I hope we can get an agreement on this. I don't think anybody is disadvantaged. I think everybody will think they have had a fair shot. Senators Frist, Ashcroft and the Senator from Iowa can talk during the votes and see if we can't find a way to bring it to a conclusion.

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator from Iowa will yield, he is getting to be a really good traffic cop here.

Mr. LOTT. If your understanding is that you would like to have your vote maybe earlier in the lineup, I don't see a problem with that. We try to alternate, Republican and Democrat.

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I amend that UC request to that effect, based on the assurance of the intent given by the distinguished Democratic whip. If it turns out that it is somehow or another not fair, we will revisit that tomorrow. I change the UC to include that request.

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

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield the floor, you will have the floor when we return, too. That was agreed to. I will put in a quorum call to try to work this out. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LOTT. I am inquiring because I had nobody to ask that. You all have had a good, full debate. I wondered if you would not be ready to go to a vote now.

Mr. LOTT. I ask the Senator from Iowa if he will be willing to have a vote on his amendment in the sequence we are talking about here?

Mr. LOTT. This one is No. 356, identified as a Wellstone amendment. It is not the amendment you are speaking of. If I understand you correctly, you are talking about a Kennedy-Wellstone amendment, and you need 2 more hours for debate.

Mr. LOTT. This is regarding your other Wellstone amendment.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I again express my appreciation to Senator Ashcroft for his willingness to agree to this unanimous consent tonight. He is right. He, Senator Frist, and Senator Harkin have agreed to be put it aside. I think it will be the fourth time we wouldn't have been able to get this agreement without their cooperation. I understand their determination on both sides of the issue. I appreciate the fact they were willing to agree to this. Did we get an agreement?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, based on that request and a full measure of trying to be reasonable and get an agreement to get this worked out and completed, because I think juvenile crime in this country is a very serious issue, for the Senate to not deal with it seriously and to complete action would be indefensible. My problem, as the majority leader, is that we have the supplemental, which is not going to be completed in 2 hours. This bill is going to take some discussion. I think it is a tragedy that we are not going to do the Y2K issue, but I am interested in getting a result. I think if we can get some cooperation, we can achieve that. Keep in mind that we have had some 25 amendments, I believe, that have been offered and debated. This would call for 20 more. That is 45 amendments on a bill that has been in the making for 2 years. So I think my request is reasonable, and it is my third or fourth attempt to find some sort of time agreement. I thought and was assured that we would work to complete this bill last Thursday. That didn't work out. And I understand. Sometimes the leadership on both sides of the aisle has goals we wish to achieve, but the rest of the troops don't necessarily follow and fall in line, so we can't quite fulfill that commitment. But the suggestion was made, well, we will have amendments Friday and Monday, and we would vote on a series of amendments Tuesday morning, final passage by noon. That was objected to. Then we said, how about 5, with more amendments after the stacked votes on Tuesday morning. That was objected to. Then I said 6. That was objected to. Now I am saying, how about getting what we have standing, 20 more amendments, and complete it by noon on Wednesday so we can go to the supplemental. I think I am bending over backwards, not because I want more of the type of debate that I heard last week where Senators even object to a Senator amending their own amendment. I didn't realize that happened in the Senate. I was very disappointed with that action. But instead, we must come together and seriously try to deal with this problem. I know there are Senators on both sides of the aisle who want to do that, and I am anxious to find a way to get it done and get it completed. I will withhold this request. I hope the managers will work through this, while we are having this very well-deserved tribute to Admiral Nance, and then after the luncheon hopefully we can wrap up some agreement.