Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do not intend to get into the details now and a discussion on the substance of the bill except to say this: The greatest hate crime of all that we should be dealing with right now is the hate crime of terrorism against America and free and innocent peoples all over the world who have been attacked by terrorists--3,000 approximately killed on 1 day, September 11. There is where our focus should be. I am disappointed at the timing of this legislation, to say the least. We should be focused on the war on terror. We should be taking up the Defense authorization bill. We should have already taken it up. Normally we deal with the Defense authorization bill in May; certainly the early part of June. Now it appears to me there will be no way to get to the Defense authorization bill before probably next Tuesday at the earliest, and maybe later. Until we do that, we cannot begin on the regular appropriations bills, the first of which should be the Defense appropriations bill. We need to make sure our men and women in uniform and our law enforcement officials all over this country and all over the world who are fighting against this hate crime, terrorism, have what they need in terms of pay, quality of life, weapons, and sophisticated equipment they need to do the job. While, obviously, this issue can be scheduled at some point--and I assume it will be scheduled--it certainly is one in which there is not an emergency facing us right now. I wanted to raise that point. We do not even have a budget resolution. We are 2 months behind getting a budget resolution this year. It is just being ignored: No budget resolution. No 2003 numbers to which we have agreed. No policies. No enforcement mechanisms. How are we going to do the appropriations bills? What possible restraint can be provided for the ranking members and the chairmen of the subcommittees on appropriations? The law requires we do the budget resolution by April 15. We do not have it. We do not know when we are going to have it. Apparently, we are never going to have it. The Defense authorization bill was reported out of the committee May 15. While there were votes against it, it was a bipartisan vote. What is the problem? There is obviously a weapons system that is causing some consternation. Sooner or later we are going to have to address that issue--sooner rather than later, I hope. With regard to this particular issue, I know how tough it is being majority leader and dealing with protracted debate and amendments. We saw last week what happens when we have a prematurely filed cloture motion. Tactically, one may think: I have to do it because I have to bring this to a conclusion. We saw last Thursday night what happens when cloture is invoked and we cut off debate and amendments. Unless it is very tightly germane, it is not in order. So at midnight last Thursday night, we were trying to figure out how do we conclude the supplemental appropriations bill, again, for defense and homeland security. Amendments were being knocked out right and left, probably amendments that were worthy and should have been taken but were not germane. We are about to do that here. We made the mistake last week, and now we are about to make the mistake again this week. We are going to cut off amendments. As a matter of fact, a substitute amendment by the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction, Senator Hatch, would be nongermane postcloture. It is not a question of trying to stop unrelated amendments. This is an amendment that even deals with the substance of the issue. Why are we doing that? I used to file cloture motions perhaps prematurely, and I was royally pilloried by the other side of the aisle: Why did you file a cloture motion so prematurely? You shouldn't do that. Most of the time I realized it was probably a mistake, and on occasion, I backed off and we vitiated the cloture vote. Even at the beginning of the last Congress when it was 50-50, under S. Res. 8, the organizing resolution, we agreed specifically in the rule that cloture motions could not be filed before 12 hours of debate had taken place. When the majority changed, that rule went by the board, but the principle was there. Why was it good when we were 50-50 but not good when it is 50-49 and 1? This is not partisan. I have made this mistake. I think it is a mistake. We should not do this. This cloture motion was filed after 12 minutes, not 12 hours. This bill was called up and within 12 minutes a cloture motion was filed. This is not the way to do business. We are prepared to debate this issue, consider legitimate, substantive amendments, and any other amendment for certainly a reasonable period of time. This is cutting off members of committees of jurisdiction. This is cutting off all Senators. It is a mistake. We made the mistake last week. We should not make the mistake now. On my side of the aisle, it would be a message that we are not going to prematurely cut off debate. Give it a little time. It works on both sides of the aisle. I urge my colleagues to vote against this cloture motion. Let's have some amendments offered. Let's spend some time making sure we do not get ourselves trapped in the same situation we did last Thursday night, which was not pretty for this institution. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LOTT. And I will not object, although I have an inquiry I need to make and I will probably ask consent as a result of that. We need to go to the Defense authorization bill. That should be our first issue before anything else. I have made the points that we have not done a budget resolution and there is nothing more important than the defense of our country and that we need to go to the Defense authorization bill. I know there was an agreement entered into on this death tax issue, and I think we should go to it as soon as possible. But I inquire about what is the plan with regard to the Defense authorization bill. I note that S. 2514, the Defense authorization bill, is on the calendar and was reported May 15. Under my reservation, can I get some information about what is the plan with regard to the Defense authorization bill?

Mr. LOTT. Under my reservation, I note there is a great deal of difference between going to the budget resolution and having full consideration, and agreeing to a number and enforcement numbers on supplemental appropriations. I am prepared to try to help find a solution, to have some limits and some enforcement mechanisms, but obviously the way it has been done for the past 25 years is to have a budget resolution. I do think it is the right thing to do, to go to this death tax issue, and I do want us to continue to work on that. We are going to get an agreement on how to proceed to the cloning issue because I made that commitment some time ago, as did Senator Daschle, to Members on both sides of the issue and on both sides of the aisle. I think we are very close. I ask to be added to this unanimous consent agreement that following the disposition of this death tax issue, H.R. 8, the next order of business be the Defense authorization bill, which is S. 2514.

Mr. LOTT. With that assurance then, I withdraw my further reservation, but I again express my concern that if we wait too late on bringing up the Defense authorization bill, being able to complete it before the recess could be a problem. We need to get it done so we can go to the Defense appropriations bill and the military construction appropriations bill. In view of the objection and the assurances, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. That is correct.

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield, I would say your amendment No. 3581 is on a list that would be given an opportunity to be considered, or acted on in some way, once we get this noncontroversial list that was offered agreed to. We are trying to move forward on the process.

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Arizona makes good points, and he has made his points throughout the debate. Are we now prepared to complete action on this last list of amendments so we can get to final passage? He has made his point, and is right, but now we have to bring this to a reasonable and quick conclusion. Are we ready to do that?

Mr. LOTT. The point is being made that the remaining amendments have been ruled to be nongermane. Therefore, they automatically would fall. There is no appeal or vote on that, and therefore we should proceed to third reading and pass the bill.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do know that Senator Gordon Smith and Senator Wyden of Oregon have an amendment they were concerned about. Their amendment would fall as nongermane, but if they would like to make a point at this time I think we would have to give them that opportunity.

Mr. LOTT. I yield.

Mr. LOTT. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. LOTT. I know the hour is late and Members would like to try to find a way to bring this to conclusion. I know this is not the ideal way to proceed. But I ask Senators at this point to be cooperative. Many of us might have an amendment or amendments we would like to have included. If they are not germane or they have been objected to one way or the other, there will be other bills. This is not the last opportunity. I hope we will cooperate at this point with Senator Reid and the Members who are involved on both sides and bring this bill to a conclusion. If any Senator starts objecting and insists on votes, the horse is out of the barn and we will never end it. This is an important bill. We have done good work. It is time to bring it to a conclusion. I hope all Senators will wait for another opportunity if they didn't get their nongermane amendments on this bill.

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield, one way is to appeal to the Senator from Arizona. I ask the Senator to reconsider. We have a senior Senator here who is in this position not because of his own fault. He had a commitment made to him by senior members on both sides of the aisle. They are trying to keep that commitment. We should honor that, whether it is Republican or Democrat, no matter where you are from or who it is. I urge the Senator not to object to that request under these conditions. I would be here defending or keeping a commitment to the Senator from Arizona if he were the one involved. I don't know what the subject is, but I ask the Senator to reconsider. I make the request again that it be accepted by unanimous consent, and I make that appeal to the Senator.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.

Mr. LOTT. I will yield.

Mr. LOTT. That is what we have done.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will yield the floor so others can be recognized.

Mr. LOTT. Without yielding the floor, I yield 1 minute to Senator Wyden.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, to try to assist Senator Reid in bringing this to a conclusion----

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator would yield a couple of minutes before we get started, I will be very brief.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I understand there will be morning business now until 10:30 and the time will be equally divided. Between 10:30 and 11 a.m. we will have equally divided debate on the pending issue and the Stevens-Byrd cloture vote at 11 a.m. I come to the floor to make sure that I have an opportunity to urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. I am not happy with this legislation. It is very unfortunate that it has been increased at every step along the way beyond what the President asked for, at least $4 billion more than what the President asked for, and the mix within the rest is clearly not what the President asked for in this emergency supplemental for defense and homeland security. It is unfortunate that it has been brought to the floor in this way. I remind my colleagues that postcloture, assuming cloture passes, amendments to strike would still be in order. I am sure there will be a number to try to pare back the bill and to take out nonemergency, nondefense, and homeland security issues. I hope they succeed, because, clearly, the bill has gotten out of control. This is nothing new. Every Congress does it. Every President makes the mistake of asking for supplemental appropriations, and every Congress sees this as a vehicle on which we can enjoy a ride. We have all participated. I am not proud of that. But I say that to make the point this is not something new. They always tend to grow and grow. I have taken occasion with every President of both parties to plead with them not to send a supplemental; just do what we need in the regular appropriations process. But they always do it. And quite often we urge them to do it when there are, ostensibly, emergencies. Many of them are very legitimate. On the other side of this coin, this is supposedly an emergency. We should have done it 2 months ago. The President should have asked for it earlier, the House should have acted earlier, and we should have found a way to act early, although it is hard to be too critical of the time in the Senate because we were not going to be able to move forward on it until the House acted. If it is an emergency, if it is payback for what we have spent in defense, if it is to provide what we need on an emergency basis-- homeland security, Coast Guard, whatever--in terms of making sure our country is safe, we should have already done it. To drag this out into next week would not be a positive thing. I add that amendments that would be offered, if we don't get cloture, will make worse a bill that has a lot of problems. Substantive amendments would be offered that would cause problems. More spending would be added. The better part of valor is to vote for cloture, continue to work to try to pare it down to a more reasonable number, get it in conference, and get it closer to what the President wants so we can get our work done before the Fourth of July recess and get it to the President so he can sign it. We are not unanimous on our side of this issue. The proper leadership position is to say, let's vote for cloture, go forward in the hours we have after cloture to cut it back and then get it into conference. I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote for this cloture motion. Perhaps the cloture was filed too quickly. I understand, as majority leader, sometimes events or speeches prod you to do things that later maybe you wish you had not done. The fact is the majority leader filed it, and we will vote on it. After watching events the last 2 days, I think we should go ahead and support cloture. With that, I yield the floor.