Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, a number of Senators are inquiring about how we will proceed for the balance of the evening and when we can expect to complete this bill, how long we will go tonight and also, of course, will it be necessary for us to go over until tomorrow and beyond. All along, the commitment and the understanding have been, I believe by all parties, that we would spend 2 legislative weeks on this issue and we would have a full debate and votes on amendments, and that we would bring to it a conclusion at about this time so we could be prepared to move on to other very critical national issues. I am not sure exactly how many amendments are still remaining. I know Senator Reid has been working to try to identify exactly what amendments remain and to move those by consent agreement or voice vote, where it was possible. I know Senator McConnell has been doing the same thing on our side, working with Senator Dodd. I think we are ready to complete action on this legislation. We have no more than four amendments on our side, and we think we could be prepared to work through those very quickly. I am not sure exactly what remains on the Democratic side, but I believe that the opponents and proponents are ready to vote. We have been through this. We have not moved toward a filibuster or cloture on either side. Although, in talking to Senator McCain a moment ago, he was saying that, if it were necessary, he hopes that I would file cloture on this bill. Can you believe those words came from his mouth? If I had to, of course, the cloture would ripen on Saturday. I don't think we should end this process that way. We do need to keep going. I know some Senators have commitments tonight they would like to go to. Some Senators have commitments they would like not to have to go to. I have heard--more of the latter, yes. So I would like to propose a unanimous consent request. I haven't precleared this with Senator Daschle. He looked over it. We talked about it. I am not exactly sure what his thinking is. I would be willing to consider other ideas if somebody has a good idea about how we can complete it. This is the fairest way. I ask unanimous consent that all remaining amendments in order to S. 27 be limited to 30 minutes equally divided and all other provisions of the consent agreement of February 6, 2001, remain in order.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I inquire of the managers, how do we wish to proceed? I yield to Senator Daschle.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, then, let me say to colleagues, we will continue on into the night. We will be having votes. If necessary, to have those votes in a reasonable period of time, we will move to table them. But we will continue as long as it takes to get this bill done. When we know more about what we could agree to, we will let you know. You should expect a vote within the next couple of hours.

Mr. LOTT. I yield.

Mr. LOTT. I think the majority of those who had talked to me were hoping we would not have a window. I think we need to keep our nose to the grindstone and try to complete this legislation. I am not saying it won't happen. I don't think we should make a commitment of a window. My wife will be waiting for me to come home and have supper. When we complete our work, I will go home and have supper with her. She may be hungry, but she waits.

Mr. LOTT. Those who show up with a tuxedo, that will count as having fulfilled your commitment to the dinner because it would show intent to be there, but a higher calling prevented your presence. You might want to don your evening attire and come to the floor and wait for an opportunity to vote.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 140, As Modified

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know Senators are interested in how we proceed for the remainder of tonight and tomorrow. I believe we have come up with the best possible arrangement of how we can complete action on this bill and be prepared to move on to other legislation. Senator Daschle and I have talked about it and have talked to the managers and the proponents of the legislation. I think everybody is satisfied that this is a fair way to bring this to a conclusion. I ask unanimous consent that all remaining amendments in order to S. 27 be limited to 30 minutes equally divided and that all provisions of the consent agreement of February 6, 2001, remain in order, except for this change: I further ask unanimous consent that all remaining amendments must be offered either tonight or between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. tomorrow and that any votes ordered with respect to those amendments occur in a stacked sequence beginning at 11 a.m. on Friday, with 2 minutes prior to each vote for explanation. I further ask unanimous consent that following the stacked votes the bill be immediately read for the third time and passage occur at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, all without intervening action or debate, and that paragraph 4 of rule XII be waived. Also, it has been suggested that we include in this consent, if necessary, a technical amendment that is agreed to by both managers may be in order.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I just covered this with the manager. I want to make sure Senator Daschle is aware. A technical amendment may not be necessary. But we want to make sure, if there is a need for a technical amendment, that there be a way to deal with that but that a technical amendment would have to be identified and agreed to tomorrow along with other amendments before we complete action. The problem is, if we wait until Monday, there is a lot of opportunity for mischief to develop.

Mr. LOTT. Wouldn't that be in order under the earlier agreement? I think that would be covered by the underlying unanimous consent agreement because other than what is specified here----

Mr. LOTT. I can understand how the managers might want to obviously have that opportunity. But also we want to have a chance to review it. I also see how maybe the Senator from Arizona would want to be included in reviewing that. But, again, there is no intent on anybody's part to try to snucker anybody. I think the way I worded it, where both managers have to agree to it, takes care of the problem. I can understand how the managers would prefer not being dragged around by our very capable staff for 2 or 3 hours on Monday, arguing over a technical amendment. However, I think this does give us a way to correct legitimate problems. I say to Senator McConnell, do you want to comment on this?

Mr. LOTT. Absolutely.

Mr. LOTT. Certainly, I yield to Senator Nickles.

Mr. LOTT. I believe that would have to be one of the regular amendments, not a technical amendment.

Mr. LOTT. Senator McCain.

Mr. LOTT. I say to Senator Wellstone, did you get wet?

Mr. LOTT. I mean that literally now, not figuratively. I saw you drenched.

Mr. LOTT. After the vote tomorrow on the sequence of amendments, there would not be a vote on the technical amendment. It would have to be agreed to. So it would be handled in that way.

Mr. LOTT. That is implicit. Also, it would certainly be the proper way to proceed. Are we ready to get this consent?

Mr. LOTT. I thank all Senators. I urge those of you who have amendments, stay and do them tonight, because the 2 hours tomorrow will go very fast. And if you are ready, I hope you will be prepared to offer your amendment tonight. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately resume consideration of the Thompson amendment regarding the hard money limit, or individual and other contributions that are referred to as hard money. There will be up to 30 minutes of debate prior to the vote at 9:45 a.m. Following the vote, another amendment regarding hard money is expected to be offered by Senator Feinstein. Senators should expect that there will be a vote, or votes, every 3 hours during the day and, hopefully, maybe some of that time will be yielded back and we won't have to use the full 3 hours on each amendment. Hopefully, we can make real progress today. Everybody will agree that we have had full, and some would even say good, debate on this subject. I think it has been handled in a fair way. I think we are going to be tested this morning in the next 3 hours to see if that will be the way it continues. I am concerned about things I have heard regarding how the Thompson amendment and others would be considered. I urge the Senate to continue in not only the words of the unanimous consent agreement but in the spirit and make sure each Senator has an opportunity to have his or her amendment fully considered and fairly voted upon. If that doesn't occur, then I think it could lead to other complications, and I will be prepared to become engaged in trying to make sure that this remains on an even keel. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are very close to a unanimous consent request that will allow us to proceed to a conclusion on this issue of the so-called hard money. I emphasize that I think what we should do at this point is go to a straight vote on the Thompson amendment. The motion to table was defeated by a considerable margin, and normally what we do, in an abundance of fairness, is go to a vote at that point on the amendment that was not tabled. Of course, there is continuing interest in this area, and Senator Feinstein has an amendment she wants to offer that will have a different level for hard money and will affect not only individual contributions but what individuals could give up and down the line, including to the parties. The fair thing to do is have the two Senators have a chance to have a direct vote side by side and not go through procedural hoops of second degrees and motions to table. At some point, we should get to a vote, get a result, and move to either raise these limits or not. I believe very strongly these limits need to be raised. They have not been modified in over 25 years. A lot has happened in 25 years. It is part of the fundraising chase with which Senators and Congressmen have to wrestle. I am concerned what this is trying to do is set up a marathon or negotiating process that drags the responsible Thompson amendment down further.