Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I apologize to Senator Reid. I came in as he was wrapping up his remarks. With regard to the time on the vote at 1 p.m., there has been some indication maybe we could start that vote 10 minutes earlier. What is anticipated?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Do you have information on that, and when do you expect we would try to enter into an agreement? Because obviously that affects the schedule of how we proceed on other issues, the energy bill in particular.

Mr. LOTT. I know there have been a lot of negotiations back and forth on getting agreement on how to proceed on campaign finance reform. I was under the impression that perhaps an agreement was close.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I emphasize that point, Mr. President. When I was talking to Senator Reid this morning, there were still, I guess, negotiations-- or not even negotiations--the technical corrections were being reviewed by a number of people, including House people, and it seemed to be moving very slowly and seemed to be holding up the final disposition of this issue. And this looks to me as if that problem is taken care of by doing it this way. So I just would inquire of Senator Reid----

Mr. LOTT. Certainly.

Mr. LOTT. You are indicating, then, you hope very shortly we could come back perhaps and propound--or perhaps you would want to propound something such as this?

Mr. LOTT. I thank you.

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object--and I do so to save time--I know Senator Reid is trying to make use of time while he works out clearances. I would object right now to going to Kyl. In the meantime, we have Senator Nickles who would like to speak, and also Senators Lincoln and Bond, and then we can communicate and see if we can't get an agreement on the Kyl amendment after we get through this. But I object at this point.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I asked questions this morning as to when we might be able to get an agreement on proceeding to the campaign finance reform issue. I know there have been a lot of efforts underway--Senator McConnell, Senator McCain, Senator Feinstein, and others. Of course, I know the House has a real interest in this. This morning I was beginning to feel that we were going to have to nudge it a little bit to get this worked out and get it agreed to so we could get a vote and move on to other issues without it interrupting them--the energy bill, for instance--even further. Unanimous Consent Requests I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the Senate now proceed to the cloture vote with respect to H.R. 2356, the campaign finance reform bill, with the mandatory quorum being waived. I further ask unanimous consent that following that vote, again notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to the consideration of a Senate resolution, the text of which is at the desk; further, the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 2356 and the time until 6 tonight be equally divided between Senators McConnell and McCain. I further ask unanimous consent that no amendments be in order to the bill and, at 6 tonight, the bill be read the third time and the Senate then proceed to a vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives from the House a technical corrections bill regarding campaign finance reform or a concurrent resolution which corrects the enrollment of H.R. 2356, and the text has been cleared by Senators McConnell and McCain, then the Senate immediately proceed to its consideration, the bill be read the third time and passed, or the resolution be agreed to, with the motion to reconsider laid upon the table and with no intervening action or debate. Here is my point and why I make this request. I believe it is ready. I think it is time we bring this to conclusion. I think we can get a vote on it at 6 o'clock tonight, and then we would be prepared to get back to energy or other issues that the Senate would desire.

Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. If I could inquire of Senator Reid, I understand he needs to confer with other Senators, and we would perhaps need to do that even more on our side. But let me clarify, this did not include the technicals correction; is that correct?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LOTT. With all due respect to the Senators in the Chamber who perhaps understand this issue, I have serious doubts how many Senators really understand what we are talking about here. I was trying to understand what the Senator was saying, and it sounds pretty complicated to me. I hope we won't do a test here to ask Senators to define what a derivative is. In fact, we have been checking Webster's, trying to make sure we understand the definition of derivative. After having read the definition, I don't think it clears up anything. Who has jurisdiction of this? Is it the Agriculture Committee or is it the Banking Committee?

Mr. LOTT. Has this amendment been considered or had hearings in Banking, or in Agriculture, as to its implications and what the impact would be?

Mr. LOTT. Isn't this clearly an extremely complicated area with which we are dealing?

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield, I was under the impression there had been serious and extended negotiations between yourself and Senator Feinstein and perhaps others in trying to work out a compromise.

Mr. LOTT. One final point and I will let the Senator give his summation. This is a very complicated area that could have unintended consequences, no question. We should not be trying to write legislation in this area in the Senate without very careful thought and consideration by committees. I think it is a very serious mistake to be considering this amendment in this way. Just so Senators will understand, Webster's defines ``derivative'' as: The limit of the ratio of the change in a function to the corresponding change in its independent variable as the latter change approaches zero. I am sure you got that. That makes my point. We don't know what we are doing here, and we should not be acting in this area.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, a further definition of ``derivative'': ``A financial instrument whose characteristics and value depend upon the characteristics and value of an underlying instrument or asset, typically a commodity, bond, equity, or currency. Examples are futures and options.'' I am sure that further clarifies the earlier definition that was read. Amendment No. 3033 To Amendment No. 2989 Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have made the point here--and Senator Gramm was making the point very strongly--that this first-degree amendment clearly needs additional work, additional consideration. The committees of jurisdiction should have an opportunity to work on it. I had hoped that some accommodation could be worked out. I am still hopeful of that. But I do not think we are ready to go forward at this time. Having said that, I also think it is very important the Senate take a position with regard to judicial nominations. This second-degree amendment is the resolution that was offered last week. There has been no indication of how we would proceed on that. All it would say is the first nine circuit judge nominations that were offered last May--May of 2001--would have a hearing--just a hearing--by May 9, 2002. This issue is very important to our country, and it needs to be considered in the order in which it was pending before we came back to the Feinstein amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, let me clarify if I may. We are moving the vote under this unanimous consent agreement from 6 p.m. to 5:50, and I assume, because we are moving that vote to begin earlier--some Senators might have thought it would begin at 6--if necessary we might delay the conclusion somewhat.

Mr. LOTT. There is a first time for everything. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are extending the morning business for an hour and a half; I presume that time would be equally divided.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time is remaining on Senator Grassley's request?