Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point the list of some of the extraneous items that have been added to this bill.

Mr. LOTT. I am not here to negotiate the exact amount. I think we have to work with the committee.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Sarbanes for the purpose of a question only.

Mr. LOTT. In responding to the question, there are perhaps some programs or agencies that may not have specific disaster funds. I know that the Senator from South Dakota has advocated something new or different with regard to livestock, if that is an accurate way to put it. I know that agriculture has a good bit of money that they could use in a variety of ways that would be helpful. But, as I understand it, this would be a new program which I am sympathetic to. But before any of this is done, I repeat once again, there has to be a plan. I just say to my colleagues here again that as soon as we complete this dialog and then we hear from others who are awaiting to speak from both sides of the aisle, including the Senator from Minnesota, who wishes to be heard, I will be glad to talk further with the Senators from North Dakota, Minnesota, and South Dakota, or any other States. We can talk about how we can do this thing expeditiously while we continue to work on the bigger package. Also, I would like to note, if I could, that we hope to move other issues in the days ahead. I mentioned that I believe we hope to consider the State Department authorization bill next week, as well as the DOD authorization bill. We need to get this resolved as soon as we can so we can get on to those important issues. I understand that my Democratic colleagues have also objected to the permission of committees to meet during today's session. One of those committees, which is very important, is the Armed Services Committee. The Armed Services Committee is marking up the Department of Defense authorization bill for the next fiscal year. This year, unlike a lot of past years, I had the impression that the DOD authorization bill and the Armed Services Committee marking up is going smoothly and that it is not going to be as controversial as it has been in the past; that we may have one or two big amendments, but that this is something we can do in a relatively short period of time-- perhaps 3 days. The Armed Services Committee had three subcommittee meetings planned today in an effort to prepare or report the Department of Defense authorization bill. I really regret that objection. Needless to say, this objection to committee meetings will only delay and hamper their ability to report this bill. Then, of course, during the week of the 23d, the Senate will consider both reconciliation bills, both the spending restraint and realignment-of- spending bill. And the tax legislation will be reported out of the Finance Committee. So we are going to have long days and nights ahead of us. I want the Members to be on notice that we must get this work done before our Fourth of July recess. Therefore, in anticipation of that, Senators should be prepared to be here at least next week throughout all of the week and probably the next week, too. The objection to the birth defects bill, as well as the provisions for committees to meet, will only make these last few weeks even longer. I understand what you are trying to accomplish here. I hope that we can find a way to allow the committees to meet, and I hope to do that later on this afternoon. Then I would like also to talk to the Senator from South Dakota the Democratic leader about exactly what we need to do in terms of debate tonight and how long you are thinking about. Also, I need to talk to all of you about how we can move something very quickly and expeditiously.

Mr. LOTT. Well, understand once again----

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I regret that the Democrats will not allow the Senate to consider this bipartisan legislation. I know there are a number of Democrats that are cosponsors of it. I presume we are going to find a way to consider this. This legislation would establish a national birth defects prevention research system. I point out that our bill is cosponsored not only by the Democratic leader, but Senator Dorgan, Senator Hollings, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, just to name a few, and a number of Senators on this side of the aisle. As I know the cosponsors are aware, an estimated 150,000 infants are born each year with serious birth defects, resulting in 1 out of every 5 infant deaths. The bill is designed to establish regional birth defects research programs, establishes the Centers for Disease Control as the coordinating agency for birth defects surveillance and prevention, and authorizes grants to public and nonprofit organizations to develop new public awareness to reduce the incidence of birth defects. With regard to the supplemental bill, I presume that we are going to continue to work to try to find a resolution to this problem. I think I have proven over the past year that I always believe you can find a way to work through disagreements. Quite often here in the Senate, when we seem to be in an immovable position, when everyone is intractable, Senator Daschle and I have found if we go to the Senators that say, ``No deal ever,'' and ask them, ``OK, what's the solution?'' I think quite often they say, ``Well, we can do it this way or that way.'' What I have suggested to Senator Daschle and to the White House and to the House of Representatives and to the leadership in the Senate, including the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is we can work together and see if we can come up with language that we can agree on with regard to this very important issue and with regard to preventing a Government shutdown at the end of the fiscal year and find a way to move the bill with some of the other language that is in there. Some of it may have to be removed; some of it may be compromised. But, you know, compromise is not something where you work it out with yourself, on one side of the aisle or one side of the Capital. Now we have to work among ourselves, Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate and the administration. It involves engagement. And I have asked several times along the last couple weeks, including last Friday and again yesterday, and including direct conversations with the President--``You know, can't we find a way to come up with some language that you can live with and that we can live with and move this issue beyond us and go on to other issues?'' I want to note also for one and all that this bill was originally requested to be $4.1 billion. It is now at least $8.6 billion. And it is not just funds for disasters around the country, it is also funds for the Department of Defense and a lot of other programs that were not originally requested. I will just give you some idea what we are talking about. I hope I have the list here. It does include things like--and these are all good and fine programs, I guess--but $33 million I think it is for the Botanical Gardens, not exactly emergency disaster funding; $23 million for a parking garage in Cleveland, OH. I do not have the list here with me, but there is a long list of things that have been added along the way. Barnacles have been picked up on this ship. So one of the things I have suggested is, while we continue to work to try to resolve the amount and the language--in fact yesterday I was asked by one of the administration officials--I do not want to put words in their mouth-- ``What is this objection that Attorney General Reno has to some money in the bill?'' I said to this person, ``Are you talking about the $2 million for a law enforcement commission?'' Would the President want to start talking about vetoing a bill because of $2 million for a law enforcement commission? I do not think so, but I would like to hear what their argument is against it. One of the things I have suggested, with all honesty, and I did it back before the Memorial Day recess, rather than trying to negotiate this thing down or to solve all the language right now, we should go ahead and do a smaller bill that will provide the real emergency disaster and the urgent salary for DOD. That will still leave a lot of money and a lot of language that we will continue to work on. I guess what I am saying here is that I would like to get this worked out. I would like for us to move on to the reconciliation bill. I would like for us to move on to appropriations bills. I had hoped we could do two or three appropriations bills before the Fourth of July recess, and I still hope we can put them in there tomorrow. I would like for us to take up some of the nominations that are pending. I would like for us to take up adoption legislation, legislation that passed the House with 465 votes, to make it easier to have adoptions in America. I did not bring it up last week because I found that we have a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle that have been working on that and have some good ideas, including Senator Rockefeller, Senator DeWine, Senator Craig, and Senator Chafee. They are working on it, and I think we may have a compromise adoption bill we could call up later on this week. All I am saying here is let us go on and do some of these bills that we should be able to do in a relatively short period of time, including the birth defects research program, while we continue to see if we can work things out. I am ready. I am ready. Help me. I think we can find a way to get this thing done. But it does not work this way. It does not work that the President says, ``Send me down a full plate of money, $8.6 billion --and, by the way, we do not want any of your language on it.'' I have gone back and I have looked at supplementals over the years, and there has hardly ever been a supplemental that did not have all kinds of extraneous language, all kinds of add-ons. If necessary, as the afternoon progresses, I will read the list. Many of the supplementals that went to President Reagan, President Carter, and President Bush had not one or two little pieces of language, lots of pieces. I will give you some idea of how on every supplemental, I believe without many exceptions, the Congress has expressed its will. We have input. We deserve some consideration. These are not insignificant issues. I am not convinced, for instance, on census, that at some point, once we fully understand how the sampling might work, that we would not want to do that. I think I have real legitimate questions that I do not know the answers to yet. Rather than let the administration start on down the trail, and we will do this by sampling, I want to know for sure how that is going to be better than enumeration. I want to know who is going to do it, and how it will be done. I do not know the answers. All I am saying is, take a time out on this issue, on census, until we have more time to work on it, and then we can resolve it this fall or even next year, but we should not get locked in now before we have had a chance to really look into it. So, I yield to my colleague, Senator Daschle, and ask my colleague to answer this question: If the Senate cannot consider this bill today, would he be in a position, if we cannot do it today, to grant consent for the Senate's consideration during Wednesday's session of the birth defects research program bill?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Labor Committee now be discharged from further consideration of S. 419, a bill to prevent birth defects by developing and implementing new prevention and surveillance strategies and the Senate now proceed to its immediate consideration under the following limitation: One substitute amendment in order to be offered by Senator Bond, no other amendments be in order to the bill, and there be 30 minutes equally divided for debate with Senator Bond in control of 15 minutes, and the ranking member in control of 15 minutes, and further, following the disposition of the amendment, and the expiration or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill as amended with no intervening action or debate.

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

Mr. LOTT. I hope before the afternoon is over, we will have an opportunity to get an agreement for an extended period of time of debate which would be open, with the normal recognition of the Chair and going back and forth on both sides of the aisle, that would go on for quite some time. Again, I want to talk to the Senator about what length of time he is talking about.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move that the Senate stand in adjournment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I appreciate the questioning of the Senator from Oklahoma, and I say that the procedure which I am about to carry out here has been forced by the fact that we can't get consideration of the birth defect legislation, we can't get permission for key committees to meet, and we can't get a time agreement on how the debate will occur.

Mr. LOTT. Correct.

Mr. LOTT. I knew it came as a shock to the Senator from Oklahoma, but he is right.

Mr. LOTT. I would be willing to work with him in that regard. I think we definitely can do it. I believe we will have some time here in a moment where maybe we can talk about that. Here is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He is convening. I have seen him work miracles before, and I know he is prepared to do that again this time with the help from the Senators from North Dakota and the Senator from Texas. Does the Senator from Oklahoma wish to ask a question with regard to the situation?

Mr. LOTT. I will yield if the Senator allows me to make a couple of points. I want to go back and reconfirm something I said a moment ago to make sure it is correct in the Record. The bill that we are trying to get brought up, the birth defects bill, is not a new bill. It was one that has had a lot of work, and the substitute that we have now is going to be considered when we get permission to bring it up. There has been objection to bringing up the birth defects bill by the Democrats. It is almost identical to the language that was approved by the committee on Labor and Human Resources in 1995 and passed the full Senate in September 1996 as part of the Health Profession's Education Consolidation and Reauthorization Act, S. 555. So the Senate is familiar with this. The Senate has worked on it. The Senate has voted on it. It is not a new issue or one that we are trying to put out without it having been considered by committee or having been considered by the full Senate in the recent past. I want the Record also to reflect that I have tried to get the Democrats to agree for the Armed Services Committee to meet, and other committees, on very important issues. They have objected to bringing up the birth defects bill. They have objected to the Armed Services Committee meeting, the Foreign Relations Committee meeting, the Science Committee from meeting. I even offered an opportunity for us to divide an hour of debate time equally on both sides and to get an agreement where we could have extended debate tonight, and I suggested even as late as midnight, 6 hours, 7 hours, whatever amount of time that might have been called for. But that was not accepted because they would not agree for the Armed Services Committee to meet and to do their markup work. I want to say again, my Democratic colleagues have objected to bringing up the birth defects bill, they have objected to very important committees meeting with very important witnesses, and a markup of the Department of Defense. They have objected to dividing the time equally so all Senators can be heard in 10-minute segments of their own time, and they have even refused an offer that I have made for this debate to go on for an extended period of time, perhaps even as late as midnight tonight. Now, before I make any further motion, did the Senator from North Dakota have a question he would like to ask? And I yield for the purpose of a question.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, clearly, the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, is right on this. She knows her business. She is on the Appropriations Committee. I do not know what the exact figure is but probably of the $8.6 billion in this supplemental, well over half of it could not remotely qualify as disaster. It is probably in the range of $5 billion to $6 billion of the $8.6 that would not qualify as emergency disaster, either because it is not directly needed and/or because it could be handled through the regular appropriations bills. Clearly, a large portion of this bill would not qualify as emergency disaster. Again I do not know the exact amount. We have to hear further from the committee members, and I presume we will as the time goes forward.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in responding to the question by the Senator from Texas, obviously I think that she is suggesting a route that is appropriate. There is a difference between a supplemental appropriations in its normal sense and a supplemental appropriations that includes some emergency provisions. Clearly, they could be separated out and moved as the Senator from Texas has suggested. I want to commend the Senator from Texas for her work as a member of the Appropriations Committee, a member that knows what is in the bill and what is not. And I think some Senators have not had an opportunity to look at all the things that have been added in terms of language and additional spending and programs which may be worthwhile but which are much more in the supplemental range, not in the emergency range, and also could be dealt with in the regular appropriations process. We are in the period of time now in this year when we ought to be doing our regular appropriations bills. And the need for a supplemental for many of these provisions has been long since past. Also, I just have to say, the idea of resolving this issue about the annual confusion at the end of the fiscal year, the threats of and in fact the shutdowns of programs or Agencies, Departments of the Government, that idea originated with the Senator from Texas and Senator McCain. They are the ones who said we need to resolve this now, not October 1 or October 15 or November 1 when we are going through these fiascoes. The suggestion was that we solve this problem now. The language that was introduced, which was subsequently compromised, by the way, to raise the funding above what the Senator from Texas wanted, originated from her. I challenge anybody in this institution or anywhere to suggest that the Senator from Texas is not concerned about the need for the disaster assistance or the funds for the Department of Defense. She knows that this issue is important, and she also knows it can be resolved. It can be resolved quickly and it can be resolved in terms of working out language that would serve the American people well in stopping these annual Government shutdown activities. I commend her for the work she has done, the leadership she has provided, and for the fact she continues to say we can work through this with language which may be different from what she originally started with but with language that is acceptable, or that we go with emergency language only. I yield to the Senator from Texas for a further question.

Mr. LOTT. That is correct.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would also like to inquire of the Senator from Texas. Senator Hutchison, had indicated that she had hoped to be able to speak. I wonder if she has a question she would like to propound at this time because I would be able to yield to her at this time, under the rules we find ourselves confronted with, only for a question. So I ask that she frame her comments in the form of a question.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will respond to the question and comments framing that question by the Senator from Minnesota. I appreciate what he has had to say. And I appreciate his interest in getting this assistance provided. He has been constructive and helpful in that he has been suggesting a variety of ways we could try to come to an agreement on how to proceed here. He is absolutely right that, as a matter of fact, what we passed last week was a compromise. There had been funds added, language added. And, as a matter of fact, the language dealing with the Government shutdown prevention was a compromise provision. Senator McCain, one of the original sponsors, along with Senator Hutchison, offered an amendment and actually raised the level of funding whereby the Government would continue basically at the current year level until an agreement was reached on the next year's appropriations bills. So it was compromise language. I mean, it should not go without people's notice that it got 67 votes here in the Senate. This matter can be resolved. It can be done quickly. It could have already been dealt with if the President just signed the bill. The President is not without tools to work with the Congress. But he must understand--and I know the American people understand--that we, as representatives of the people, have a coequal voice in this Government. We have a right to be heard. And we have a right to have very important issues that we are concerned about addressed. So I again appreciate the Senator's patience here and his suggestions. I know he is going to continue to work with leadership on both sides of the aisle and across the Capitol where he served in trying to find an appropriate solution to this problem.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would respond to that, if I could, that certainly it is again not controversial. There has been a lot of work done on it. There have been hearings on this bill. And I believe an almost identical provision, if not identical, was a part of the comprehensive health legislation that came up last year. That was a different Congress, but it is not as if it is a new idea. It has been around for awhile. And a number of Senators are very familiar with what it would do, including the Senator from South Dakota. Mr. President, because he has been so diligent in his effort to wait to be heard, and recognizing that it does not appear we are going to be able to work out some agreement where he could make a statement, I, if I can, yield to the Senator from Minnesota for the purposes of a question so that he could at least address a question that frames his concerns in this area.

Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield for a comment or question from the Democratic leader.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I also had hoped that we would be able to work out an agreement where there wouldn't be objection to my motion to proceed to the Birth Defects Prevention Act--this is broadly supported legislation; I don't see how there could be objection to it--while we continue to work to find ways to move other legislation while committees are meeting. I understand the pressure that Senators feel on both sides of the aisle on other issues, but I don't see why that should cause us to halt or prevent us from taking up a very noncontroversial, broadly bipartisan supported legislation like S. 419. I am also hopeful that this week we could take up the adoption legislation that we have been holding in abeyance for a week. And the Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine, has done very good work on that and I believe is prepared to spend time on the floor when we call up that legislation. I hope it will be in the next coming days. Let us be clear about what this legislation does, the birth defects legislation. No one in this body needs to be told that birth defects are the leading cause of infant mortality in this country. They are directly responsible for one 1 of every 5 infant deaths. Here is a chance to do something about that, not in a week, not in a month, but this afternoon with, I am sure, not very long debate but enough debate so that the issue can be properly addressed. We have spent the last couple of hours or so talking about other issues other than this bill which we had hoped to call up and begin debating. No one needs to be told that every year some 150,000 infants are born with a serious birth defect. Here is a chance to do something about that. Here is a chance to foster the most effective--and, by the way, the most cost effective--ways to prevent birth defects. We now know that folic acid vitamin supplements can prevent spina bifida. We know that programs to promote avoidance of alcohol, especially early in pregnancy, can dramatically reduce a whole range of birth defects. We want to get that knowledge out to those who need it. Senator Bond's bill would do that through regional research programs to identify the causes of clusters of birth defects. His bill, which, by the way, is cosponsored by more than a score of Senators on both sides of the aisle, makes the Centers for Disease Control the lead agency for surveillance of birth defects and prevention activities to reduce their incidence. His bill proposes grants to public and nonprofit groups to foster public awareness in ways to prevent birth defects. It would also set up a National Information Clearinghouse on Birth Defects. This legislation, to which there has been objection, is really important and is endorsed by a wide range of groups: The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Mental Retardation, the American Hospital Association, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, the American Public Health Association, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, the March of Dimes, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the National Perinatal Association, the National Easter Seal Society, and the Spina Bifida Association. On their behalf, I again renew my concern. There has been objection to this bill. On their behalf, I ask that we confer and see if we cannot find a way to bring up this legislation, if not today, tomorrow, while we work on other solutions to other problems. It is not a partisan issue. It is not controversial. And all that Senator Bond has sought has received support across the political lines and he has urged that we take it up this week. It would be different if it were controversial or if this were a partisan issue. But it is not. It is one that I think we certainly need to get passed. And a lot of good work has gone into it. And I will continue to ask that it be brought up this week. And I will certainly confer with the leaders on the other side of the aisle as we try to find a way to bring to the consideration of the Senate legislation that would help with this very serious and very difficult problem of birth defects. So now I ask---- Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

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