Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator from Nevada yield so I may make one comment? I will use 1 minute of my time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have at the desk another amendment, the third one I mentioned previously. I ask unanimous consent that it be put in line after the second one.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want the Senator from West Virginia to know I appreciate the restraint that he has used in coming out on the procedure we followed. In my judgment, there was no alternative. I agree with much of what the Senator from West Virginia has said. But the necessity for obtaining a budget resolution soon so we can get on with our business on appropriations motivated me to join with my good friend from New Mexico. I think the Senator understands that problem, and I do thank him for his restraint in commenting upon my behavior here today.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wish to use the remaining time to withdraw amendment 2932 and amendment 3009. I ask unanimous consent they be withdrawn.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank those who listened regarding the appropriations process and the actions we have taken to try to assure we will have the ability to meet the needs of the Nation. It is a very trying process. I think the compromise we have worked out will be enough for us to do our work. I am indebted to the chairman of the Budget Committee and all who have worked on this matter.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2964 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the need to reduce gun violence in America)

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate the Senator's comments. I was misinformed. I apologize to the Senator. I want to make certain when the time comes, we get to the floor as intended.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, regular order. Amendment No. 2931

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is the first of a series of three amendments that deals with points of order in the budget resolution, as it was reported to the Senate. I have the feeling that this is deja vu because every year we face the same kind of concept. In the current budget resolution, for instance, that we are operating on for this fiscal year, there is, in fact, a point of order against emergency spending that requires 60 votes for emergency spending of a nondefense character. The resolution that was reported to the floor extends that to cover defense spending also. It also has what we call a firewall that covers both budget authority and outlays for defense and nondefense. And it has a series of two other points of order that deal with delayed obligations and advance appropriations. Those make the management of the 13 bills our subcommittees work on annually and the supplemental and emergency bills that we face extremely difficult. We have had a long series of conversations. I told someone I sort of feel like Houdini. Every year, I get a different set of chains and the configuration of the box I am put in before I am put in the water differs, but everybody expects me to get out of it. I must say to the Senate, before this year is over, you might find some new approaches that help me get out of the chains. But these mechanisms, primarily for enforcement, ought to apply to the Senate as a whole, not only to the Appropriations Committee. In fact, if you examine the rules, as I did early this morning when I got up and started thinking about these amendments, I think you will find it very interesting. We have a series of rules that govern the Senate, and if we ever really followed them, we would not have the trouble that we have once in a while here on the floor. The interesting thing is that those rules do not apply to the appropriations process in most instances because the framers of those rules understood the real complexities of the appropriations process and the fact that we do deal with emergencies and with various extraordinary circumstances in the course of each year's consideration of these 13 bills. We were prepared to offer three amendments to delete these three sections: 208, 210, and 211. I have had long discussions with my good friend, Senator Domenici, the manager of the bill, chairman of the Budget Committee, and he has made an offer to us, which I am reluctant to agree to, but I have no alternative because no committee needs the budget resolution more than the Appropriations Committee. The points of order that are in the Budget Act apply to the Senate Appropriations Committee. They don't even apply to the House bill because the House controls its access to the floor and amendments through the rules process. We, therefore, have to negotiate with the Budget Committee to obtain the best possible regime under which to present the appropriations bills for the fiscal year 2001. I am going to yield to my friend. It is my understanding that he will offer an amendment and that the amendment will be debated here. It is my intention, if it is what I believe it to be--as I said, I am reluctantly going to agree to support it, primarily because we need this budget resolution, and also because I have great trust and faith in the chairman of the Budget Committee. He is seeking to get his job done, and I am seeking to be able to do the job that has been assigned to our committee. Mr. President, I yield to my friend to carry on the discussions. He will yield to the Senator from Texas and others. How much time do I have on this amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the regular order.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for a minute? I want to make sure I haven't inadvertently lost the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. A second degree to my pending amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have the right to call for regular order, but how much more time is left on this amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. It was my intention to delay debate on my amendment until the Robb amendment and the second-degree amendment were finished. As I understand it, a substitute was filed rather than a second-degree. I am not sure that process is over. I want to keep our commitment. I apologize to the Senator from Maryland; I thought that was over when I came to the floor. I am prepared to allow my good friend from Georgia to complete this process, if that is the desire of the Senate. We will get to my amendment when this amendment is disposed of.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. STEVENS. I yield back my time and ask for a vote on my amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. If I have 49 minutes, I yield 45 minutes to my friend, and I will reserve 4 minutes in case I have to come back into this discussion at some point. It is my understanding that he has the authority, then, to yield to other Members on this side who might wish to discuss the matter, is that correct?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for a minute?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk two amendments to strike section 208 and section 210, and I ask unanimous consent that they be qualified and temporarily set aside to be called up later. We will have a third amendment pertaining to section 211 to be offered later.

Mr. STEVENS. That these amendments be qualified and put in line.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I do agree. It was never the intention of those who worked on the broad satellite television reforms in the last session to establish any different copyright or communications rules for loan guarantee applicants, but rather that they be governed by the same rules as all others in the market. If special rules were established for loan guarantee applicants, the loan guarantee program would have collateral effects on the market for subscription television services by causing a confusing disparity in the rules applicable to competitors, and possibly skew competition in unforeseen or inappropriate ways. I agree that it is important to clarify the application of law in this way at that time. I would ask the managers of the bill if they agree with us and will commit to work through conference to the end of ensuring that the rules we adopted last year will continue to apply to applicants and non-applicants alike?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next vote in the series be limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS

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