Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold his yielding the floor? I would like to ask him a few questions.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gregg for his work in this area and for the several speeches he has given on this matter over the last few days. I have found it very informative. I hope we have something worked out where we can actually get a vote on this issue. It is still the Senate and, generally speaking, we try to accommodate Members' wishes to discuss an issue and get a vote. But a little bit of history: I worked very hard, as I pointed out yesterday, on line-item veto legislation, and we got it done. The first time it was used I was very disappointed in the way that President Clinton used it. I thought the veto list had some serious political implications and was very disappointed in that and wondered if I had done the right thing. Then, of course, the Supreme Court struck it down. And now we are back here. Now, tell me again--where a layman can understand--why is this so- called enhanced rescission?

Mr. LOTT. Second look at waste. I like that. I like them taking another look at waste. And I like putting it against the deficit. In fact, I remember back in the 1970s arguing that a President should be able to rescind funding, not spend money that Congress said he should spend because they had been doing it back since the time of Jefferson. That led to, in 1974, the Budget Empowerment Act, which stopped President Nixon and subsequent Presidents from doing that. There is no question that we sometimes adopt bills that spend funds that should not be spent or events overtake spending. I think there should be some process for a President to get a reconsideration. There may be better ways to use that money. But I do think we have a constitutional role in that too. Once we indicate this is where we think it should be spent, the overwhelming burden should be to explain why not. The question to you, I say to the Senator, is this: No. 1, why is this different from the line-item veto that we passed that was stricken down by the Supreme Court?

Mr. LOTT. Was there language in the Supreme Court that indicated this sort of thing might solve their constitutional reservations?

Mr. LOTT. Why do you think it is necessary to have four bites at this apple? I am inclined to give Presidents a chance to send up a rescission list. I think it should have a vote. I think it should be an expedited procedure. I like the fact that if we do not spend it, he cannot turn around and spend it somewhere else and it goes to reduce the deficit. I can even see giving him a second bite later on in the year as long as it is not some of the same things a second time. And you took care of that concern I had last year. But why four times? We will wind up spending half the year working on expedited proceedings to get a vote on rescissions, possibly.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I hear a lot of talk in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle about how we do worry about deficits and getting spending under control and getting some further disclosure or limits on earmarks. Some of that I do not even agree with. But there is a lot of positioning about how we need to get some better control on spending. Wouldn't this be one way to do that? ``It would sort of help me before I do it again,'' sort of thing.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we gripe about this earmark or that earmark. Usually it is somebody else's earmark, not our earmark. So we do position on that subject. But this is one last way to make sure those earmarks see the light of day and are reviewed, not in a way where the President can just summarily do it but where he can do it, and we have to face up and vote yes or no. So I thank the Senator for what he has done. He has been a great chairman of the Budget Committee. I am looking forward to watching him and the Senator from North Dakota work together. I believe we might actually do some good things under yours and his leadership. I wish you the very best in that effort. Thank you. Mr. President, here we are, the Sun has set on Thursday. It is a quarter to 6. The Sun officially went down at 5:13. We are like bats. The Senate will soon come out from wherever we have been. I am not blaming anybody on either side of the aisle, but I don't know what happened today. Somewhere back, I guess, about 2 o'clock all the combatants went to their respective corners, and there has not been a blow thrown since. So some people might say: Do something about it. Well, I am trying to do something about it by shedding a little light on what we are not doing. We have been out here marking time all afternoon. I know how it works. Papers are exchanged, amendments added and struck, and agreements are made. Hello, it is a quarter to 6. I had high hopes and I have high hopes that the Senate is going to find a way to work together and do a better job and that we work at 11 o'clock on Wednesday morning instead of 11 o'clock at night. I know a lot of people don't agree with me on this, but I don't see why it is a good idea to be voting at 11 o'clock on Thursday night but not on Friday morning. I still think it is a really good idea to work during the daylight and go home and not have a meal with a lobbyist but have a meal with your family. I don't know what else to do. I have called everybody involved. I have been to offices. I have been stirring around, scurrying around. Is there an agenda here? I don't get it. But I know what is going to happen. All of a sudden, we are going to come out of our cages and we are going to start a whole series of votes. Well, let's get started. I notice the Presiding Officer is an old House Member. There was a clear rule in the House, an adage that was proven right every time, and that has been one of the problems with the House. More and more, the House tried to cram a week's worth of work into 2\1/2\ days, and they would have a series of votes at 11 o'clock--outrageous--at night. Any time you are in session beyond 9 o'clock, the odds are pretty good you are going to mess up, do something wrong and embarrass yourself. So I would say to our leaders: We have an opportunity here to do a better job and to work with each other. But the last 2 days? Again, you might say: Well, it is because Senator Gregg had an amendment. Well, why don't we just vote and move on? People can say: Well, we are working out an agreement where we won't have a lot of votes. Well, we might just as well have a lot of votes. We are standing around giving speeches on something we are not even going to vote on. This is the kind of thing that I think leads to problems and tarnishes our image. I wish we could find a way to do things in a more normal way. But maybe the Senate can't do that. Maybe the Senator from Maryland will help us find a better way to do things as a new Member of the institution. I hope so. I thought maybe I could draw somebody out, but I guess I was too general. Nobody has moved. The doors are still closed. I have half a mind to ask unanimous consent that we complete all votes on all amendments and all time be expired effective in the morning at 9 o'clock, and I will see you all tomorrow. Maybe I ought to do that. That would be good. Of course, I have no authority to do that, but somebody ought to do it to try to get this place to function normally. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending business at this point?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I may proceed to speak on this overall issue that has been going back and forth for quite some time, I find myself somewhat amused. I don't quite understand what all the fuss is about. I have been through this before. I have been in the position of resisting an amendment such as this. I have been in the position of advocating an amendment such as this. Everybody is getting their press releases ready now to go out to put their spin on this issue. I wish to make a brief effort to try to put it into proper perspective. First, the idea or the suggestion that Republicans don't want to get this to conclusion is not credible because I managed this bill last year. We did it in a bipartisan way. As Senator McConnell has said, we got an overwhelming vote. I think it was 90 to 8, and it had tough provisions in there, including most of what is in this bill. Keep in mind, the underlying bill from last year was introduced by a bipartisan group, leaders on both sides, to begin this debate. Then there was a substitute laid down with some additional changes. Then we went forward with the amendments. I don't think it is fair to characterize this as one side or the other trying to stop a result. As a matter of fact, I thought our leaders were going to come together. It is OK, we are going to identify a number of amendments about which Members are serious, and we could have votes on them this afternoon and Thursday and finish up Thursday night or Friday. Now I guess there is a little bit of a manhood thing here where one side is going to show the other. Again, having been through this, when Senators do feel strongly about an issue, who have done the kind of work Senator Gregg has done, they are going to get a vote and they should get a vote. It is very simple. We could get a time agreement. Obviously, Senator Gregg would be prepared to come up with a reasonable time agreement. It is an important issue, but it certainly has been debated. I have been on all sides of this issue over the last 10 years or so, and we could have a vote on a few other amendments and complete our work and then await conference, by the way, which won't occur until some time in March or April because the House action which has been described basically as getting the job done was only a rules change in the House. They didn't do anything about lobby reform, and they are not going to do so until March. It is not that we are in a tear to catch up with the House. We are going to complete this in a reasonable time, and then we will wait, but we are going to get a result because there are things we need to do with ethics, lobbying reform. We can do it. We should do it. Some have gotten out of control. Now we are in a long process of self-flagellation without getting to cleaning up some things that need to be changed. With regard to the specifics of this amendment, I was involved in the process in the nineties when we passed the line-item veto. I was very much an advocate of it. I remember we had a bipartisan group that did that. I know Senator Byrd spoke vigorously against it. We got it done, and it went to the Supreme Court. Before it went to the Supreme Court, President Clinton used the line-item veto for the first time, and I was pretty shocked by the list he came up with. Then I thought: Well, maybe I was wrong after all to support this power of the President. This is not the same thing. This has been developed by Senator Gregg specifically addressing questions or problems of the line-item veto. I don't want to give Presidents, as they have had, by the way, and used for years, a summary rescission. This is a process, and I looked at it carefully. I had reservations about the draft we were talking about last year. I don't particularly like giving the President four bites of the apple. But I do like the fact that if we have some rescissions that go to reduce the deficit, Presidents can't put the same rescission project multiple times. He gets a shot at it, and then he can come up with a different list. I am a cosponsor of this legislation. I think it will help to bring spending under control. I do think it will allow the President, when there is a project that cannot be defended in the light of day, a chance to take it out, and then we have to vote on it. And, by the way, it is not in perpetuity. It is for 4 years. This President will have this authority for 2 years, and the next President will have this authority for 2 years. Is that the correct timing on this amendment? It has a sunset. We will see how it works. If we don't like it, if we don't agree with it, if we are embarrassed by the result, it will sunset, and then that will be the end of it unless we extend it. Is that a correct interpretation?

Mr. LOTT. That is correct. I don't know why we have all this huffing and puffing. Let's set it up, have some debate, have a vote, and let's move on. By the way, I believe Senator Reid has the majority, and as Senator Gregg pointed out, it takes 60 votes to get this through. I don't think it is going to happen. Senator Gregg has been willing to work out any and all kinds of agreements. I don't know how in the world the leader could keep a commitment to get it in conference out of whole cloth. Maybe he has some plan afoot. So far we have worked pretty good. I was a little embarrassed last week. We had one of our Members offer an amendment. I voted against it, but he won fair and square. And then we went through this exercise where we were going to strong-arm Members into switching their vote. Our Members said, wait a minute, including me. I was going to switch back the other way because I thought that a mistreatment. All he was trying to do on earmarks was put us in line or in sync with what the House had passed. I still don't particularly like that language. I think it is going to create some problems, but I thought it was a very good amendment. Basically, that put us in a holding pattern for the rest of the week or 3 or 4 days. Hopefully the Democratic leadership will quit trying to fix blame and come up with a way we can complete this good work. The managers have been dealing with it and moving it along. I looked at the list of amendments. I don't see too many amendments that will be a problem in terms of time and debate and completing the work. Let's find a way to get this done, then await further House action, and then see if we can come up with a good product that is in the best interest of this institution and the American people. I believe this rescission package would help us get to that point. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I just want to take a few moments to talk about Amtrak and inter-city passenger rail. In the last Congress, I worked with Senators Stevens, Inouye, and Lautenberg--and other members of the Commerce Committee--to develop S. 1516, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act. Last year during the Senate's consideration of the reconciliation bill I offered an amendment to add the text of S. 1516. The amendment passed by a vote of 93 to 6. So I know there is widespread support for this legislation. Today we are introducing the same bipartisan legislation in hopes of gaining the same level of support as we did in the last Congress. The bill was developed with input from the Administration, the Department of Transportation's Inspector General, States, Amtrak Board members, and many others. The bill makes a number of important reforms to Amtrak, and has three major themes: Amtrak Reform and Accountability; cost cutting; and, creating funding options for States. By increasing executive branch oversight over Amtrak, this bill ensures that the taxpayers' money is used more effectively. Under its past President, David Gunn, Amtrak has made some improvements in its management. However, much remains to be done. Amtrak must be run more like a business. This bill requires Amtrak to develop better financial systems and to evaluate its operations objectively. It forces Amtrak to improve the efficiency of long distance train service. The bill reduces Amtrak's operating subsidy by 40 percent by 2011 by requiring Amtrak to use its funding more effectively, The bill promotes a greater role for the private sector by allowing private companies to bid on operating Amtrak routes. The bill also creates a new rail capital grant program that States can use to start new inter-city passenger rail service. This will be the first time that States will have a Federal program they can use for passenger rail, putting intercity passenger rail on a similar footing to highways, transit, and airports, all of which have Federal assistance programs for infrastructure. States won't have to rely only on Amtrak for intercity passenger rail service. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get this bipartisan legislation signed into law this year

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).