Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have very important committee work that needs to be done. As the Senate knows, the bulk of the work and the writing that goes on in the Senate does occur in committees at the hearings and markups. We have a very important markup now that we need to get done in the Armed Services Committee. The defense of our country is, obviously, something we want to pay very close attention to. We have less than a week in which the Armed Services Committee needs to complete its work. I would prefer that we get an agreement that the Armed Services Committee, as is always--almost always--the case, be allowed to meet with these other committees. I understand the Senator has a problem, some objections from his conference. I also would prefer that we have an hour of debate equally divided so that Senators who have been patiently waiting for quite some time can be heard, including Senators here now, and Senator Grams of Minnesota who has been waiting to be heard. I also had hoped that we could work together and get a time worked out whereby we could have extended debate tonight. It doesn't appear that we can work that out. So, I would be prepared to proceed at this time. Does the Senator have any other comment he would like to make before I propound a unanimous-consent request?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I can inquire of the Senator from South Dakota, is it his desire that we not have any further debate at this time?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next hour be equally divided between Senators Lott and Daschle and, at the end of that hour, that Senator Lott be recognized to move to adjourn.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, my consent request was for the Armed Services Committee to meet on S. 450, the Department of Defense authorization bill. They are the Subcommittees on Airland Forces, Strategic Forces, Seapower, Acquisition, and Technology. Also, for the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs and the Subcommittee on Foreign Relations to meet on some very important issues, with witnesses to be Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, Mr. William J. Bennett, and Michael J. Horowitz of the Hudson Institute, Father Keith Roderick of the Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights, prepared and waiting to testify before that committee. The second panel includes Col. Sharbel Barakat, a witness from Iran, and an anonymous witness from Pakistan. In addition to that, we asked for the Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee, Committee of Commerce, to meet with regard to NASA's international space program, which we have been working feverishly to make work, with other countries including Russia. Those are the committees that are prepared to meet this afternoon. They have witnesses lined up of both parties and a variety of positions. That has been objected to. I thought it was appropriate we put in the Record that objection is heard. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have five unanimous consent requests for subcommittees to meet during today's session of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent these request be agreed to en bloc and that each request be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I object.

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I am saying to the Senator from North Dakota, I would like to be able to work with him to do that. I intend to do that. We will talk and we will make that agreement. We will make it in a request at a period of time after we have had some of these speeches so we can talk. I don't know exactly what you all are thinking about or what you want, but there is no desire to cut the Senator from North Dakota off today. I want him to be able to make his case. I am going to work with you to do that, and I think the record will show I have done that sort of thing in the past. I am telling you here, now, we are going to find a way for you to be able to make the speech you want to make. What more can you ask of me now? And then, we will talk that through while others are speaking.

Mr. LOTT. It is my intent, Mr. President, to work with the leader and get an agreement on what time will be needed. I would like to do that. I prefer not to move for adjournment. I think we could work that out. I am indicating to you I would like for you to be able to have that time tonight. But I have been asked for three different things to agree to. I asked for one thing in return, and that's for committees to meet. I am going to have to go through a parliamentary procedure here in order for committees to be able to meet. Let us do this. Let us talk while others are talking and we could work this out. I think there is no question we can get that done. Mr. President, I renew my request that the Senators that I outlined be allowed to speak for 10 minutes and that I be recognized at the end of this list, at which time, if there are other Senators who wish to speak, they will be recognized or we will work out an order so the debate can continue.

Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield.

Mr. LOTT. I believe if we get another consent, that that would not apply. Of course, the way the Senate works, if a Senator asks for a specified period of time to speak, that usually is acquiesced to. Here is the alternative. If you like, I'll just keep talking here. We can go right on until some other time here in the afternoon. But I would like to have a free-flowing discussion, so I would like to do it in an orderly way. I asked unanimous consent, and then we will get an agreement, I presume later on, that we will have an extended period of time for debate during which Senators will be able to speak for extended periods of time.

Mr. LOTT. If I could--excuse me for interrupting you, but we are going to have an opportunity for them to speak now and speak again later. And we will have to work out the process to do that.

Mr. LOTT. You know, I am asking here for some process whereby the Senators from the various States would have a chance to make comments for a specified period of time. I asked for 10 minutes. Do you want me to expand that to 15?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could say, then, I would like to--and I will talk to the Senators about how we do this--with their cooperation, and I am talking about not just committee meetings, because we will do what we need to do there. But when we begin the debate or comments other Senators are going to make, we will talk with you about how much time we think we need and how we will do that. It is my inclination today to try to get it worked out, where we could have an understanding, an understood period of time, and to not go with a motion to adjourn.

Mr. LOTT. Well, could I inquire if the leader would be willing to give us consent for our committees to meet, if we could go ahead and lock in a unanimous consent-agreement, or an agreement on how long you all would like to go tonight? Would the Senator like to respond to that?

Mr. LOTT. If I could suggest, again, let's start with this and then I will talk to the Democratic leader, and we will go from there. This is just to get it started.

Mr. LOTT. We wouldn't limit that, either.

Mr. LOTT. Would you like to make it 15?

Mr. LOTT. I would not want to exclude them. I think this would just get an agreement that these Senators that are here, waiting for an opportunity to speak--I would like to amend that list to include the Senator from North Dakota--that we get a lineup of speakers, led off by the distinguished Democratic leader. Senator Grams has been waiting to speak; Senator Hutchinson, who is an original cosponsor of the Government shutdown prevention language, and Senator Dorgan and Senator Sarbanes have been waiting. Senator Bond is here and wishes to speak on his birth defects bill. That has been blocked now. It is a bill we should be able to have some limited debate on and get agreement to move on. Senator Wellstone, I am sure, would like to be recognized, Senator Conrad and Senator Nickles, or his designee, for 10 minutes each with their statements, and then I be recognized at end of that group. Then, if others come in, we will get time for others to speak, too. There is no desire to cut Senators off. I am just trying to set up some regular order where I don't hog all the time and I am in a position of saying to you I will yield for a question only so I do not lose control of the floor. Let's set up an orderly process and we all get our chance to make our speeches, make our statements, without being just a question or response to the question. Would the Senator object to that?

Mr. LOTT. Let me just say, in order to allow other Members to speak, would the minority leader be willing to allow us consent to provide for speeches by Senators Daschle, Grams, Hutchinson, Dorgan, Sarbanes, Bond, Wellstone, Nickles, or his designee, say for 10 minutes each, and following those statements that I be recognized?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. As a matter of fact, one of the things that amazes me is the President of the United States would veto a disaster bill because he doesn't want language in there that says we won't have a Government shutdown. As a matter of fact, if we can get this problem worked out now, it will avoid a problem we are surely going to have in October, where, once again, like we do almost every year, we have these fun and games where there is a threat of various departments or agencies or Government shutdowns that has been used by Democrats and Republicans-- most effectively, by the Democrats. And all I am saying is, you know, we could work this out. I have suggested some language that I believe most of you could live with, and we ought to go ahead and do that and get this issue resolved and move on. Of course, obviously, the purpose here would be to separate these things out where the President could veto them, if he wanted to, and not resolve the problem. Why move these on down the line toward another disaster--as I have already pointed out, a manmade disaster--at the end of the fiscal year?

Mr. LOTT. If I can respond to that, it is interesting the Senator would raise that. As a matter of fact, I believe that one of the things that will probably be indicated as urgent disaster need would be in the transportation area which is different from the $694 million that is in the bill, and let me just emphasize this. The President in that area asked I think for about $300 million, but along the way that figure grew to almost $1 billion. I have seen this figure I believe that is there, $694 million. I think that has to do with ISTEA and the allocation formula and that there is a separate emergency transportation item that we might consider. It may not be accurate, but that is the impression I have. That $694 million is for funds all over the country not related to the disaster.

Mr. LOTT. Now, look, again, this bill is $8.6 billion and it has got a lot more in it than just disaster aid. It has some disaster relief that is not emergency and not needed for months and even years.

Mr. LOTT. And I realize the situation is different now. But I do not know, I do not know how much different it is. I have supported a lower figure. I supported a higher figure.

Mr. LOTT. I also supported, I believe it was about $1 billion right before the Memorial Day recess.