[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 114 (Monday, August 15, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              VOTE ON MOTION TO INSTRUCT SERGEANT AT ARMS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Feingold]. Under the previous order, the 
hour of 5 p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now vote on the motion 
to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the presence of absent 
Senators.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Maine 
[Mr. Mitchell] to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the 
attendance of absent Senators. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD, I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the 
Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], and the Senator from Georgia 
[Mr. Nunn], are necessarily absent.
  Mr. DOLE. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], 
the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski, and the Senator from Wyoming 
[Mr. Simpson], are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 287 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--16

     Bennett
     Breaux
     Brown
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Helms
     Inouye
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Smith
     Specter
     Wallop

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     D'Amato
     Lautenberg
     Murkowski
     Nunn
     Simpson
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. With the addition of Senators voting who did 
not answer the quorum call, a quorum is now present.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of Senators?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, several Senators have inquired about the 
schedule for this evening and thereafter, with respect to this 
legislation.
  First, to recapitulate, I introduced legislation on Tuesday, August 
2, 2 weeks ago tomorrow. On Tuesday, August 9, 1 week ago tomorrow, the 
Senate began debate on health care reform. There were 4 hours of debate 
on Tuesday, 4 hours on Wednesday, 4 hours on Thursday, 4 hours on 
Friday, 7 hours on Saturday, and more than 7 hours today.
  The first amendment was laid down on late Tuesday afternoon. 
Notwithstanding that, there have been no votes on any amendment. I 
initially requested that there be a vote scheduled on the first 
amendment on Saturday, but the distinguished Republican leader advised 
me that Republicans would use their right under the rules to prevent a 
vote from occurring by making statements. I then requested that there 
be an opportunity for a vote on that amendment today, and I received 
the same reply.
  It is my desire to accommodate as many Senators as possible with 
respect to the schedule, but also to recognize that our paramount 
responsibility is to act on the matters before us. And, therefore, in 
an effort to reach a conclusion that gives all Senators fair notice of 
the manner in which we will proceed, and also attempt to make progress, 
there will be no further votes this evening. The Senate will remain in 
session for as long as Senators wish to debate. I want to emphasize 
that point because, although we were told last week that there were a 
large number of Senators who wanted to speak, not long after we 
announced there would be no more votes on Friday, all of those Senators 
left.
  And then on Saturday, although I offered to stay in session for as 
long as Senators wished to speak, the session terminated at about 5 
o'clock. So those Senators who have stated a desire to speak, please be 
aware that the Senate will remain in session for as long as possible--
as long as anyone wishes to speak this evening.
  We will resume the debate at 9:30 tomorrow. And if we have not been 
able to have a vote on an amendment by tomorrow evening, then the 
Senate will remain in continuous session thereafter, through the 
evening, through the night. If there is going to be delay, then those 
Senators who are going to delay will simply have to be here around the 
clock to do it.
  I hope that does not occur. I hope we can get to the amendments; all 
Senators who have amendments will offer them.
  But to repeat, in summary: In an effort to accommodate all of the 
conflicting concerns and interests here, and so as to give Senators 
full notice and not take any precipitous action, there will be no 
further rollcall votes this evening. The Senate will return to debate 
this matter at 9:30 tomorrow morning. And if, by tomorrow evening, we 
are still in a situation where no votes have been permitted on 
amendments, then the Senate will simply remain in session on a 
continuous basis thereafter.
  I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, if I might respond to my good friend 
from Maine, at least the chairman of the Finance Committee and I were 
here until 9:30 on Friday night. And there were speakers going on. We 
were here 7 hours on Friday. I do not think there has been a quorum 
call.
  This is not a question of delaying. But the majority leader indicated 
several days ago that we would have ample opportunity, and every 
Senator would not be rushed and they could say what they wanted on the 
most important bill we have seen in a quarter of a century. But we have 
not wasted time in quorum calls. We have had our people here to speak. 
As a matter of fact, we used up all of our time ahead of time today, 
and the chairman was very kind to give Senator Danforth part of his 
time.
  If what you are saying is because Senators want to speak--and these 
are simply opening statements; they have not started to speak on title 
I, title II, and title III, on taxes or mandates or risk adjustment or 
anything else--are you suggesting, if they want to speak, are you going 
to force them to speak 24 hours a day?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I think Senator Packwood's position was made clear when 
he announced the other day that there were 27 Senators who wished to 
give speeches of 3 or 4 hours in length, opening statements.
  Second, what I said with respect to Friday was that shortly after the 
announcement was made that there would be no more votes, that Senators 
left, indicating that the desire to speak was outweighed by the desire 
to leave----
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Except we did speak----
  Mr. MITCHELL. As soon as it was announced there would be no more 
votes.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. There may have been no more votes, but----
  Mr. MITCHELL. If I might finish? Then, as the Senator will recall, he 
and I had a colloquy with respect to the schedule on Saturday. I 
offered to remain in session for as long as Senators wished to speak. 
He indicated that he did not wish that we remain in session beyond 5 
p.m.
  I am not attempting to foreclose anyone from speaking. But if that is 
to be used as an excuse to prevent any action from occurring on any 
amendment on this bill, then I think we must recognize it as such and 
deal with it.

  Second, the fact that we vote on an amendment or amendments does not 
mean that a Senator is thereafter precluded from speaking on the bill. 
We are going to be on this bill for weeks, and every Senator is going 
to have ample opportunity to address the matter.
  But, of course, if, as the Senator said, 27 Senators want to give 
each a 4-hour speech, why, that is 110 hours right there, which is 
nearly 2 weeks of regular sessions. If that is the case, it seems to me 
there is no alternative but to stay in longer than 5 o'clock, 6:30, or 
7 o'clock. Otherwise, we would be accepting a condition where we would 
have a period of several weeks in which there would be a series of 24-
hour speeches, and I think that it is better to recognize the situation 
and deal with it as it exits.
  So my view is that we ought to proceed. We have had a lengthy period 
of opportunity for statements to be made. No one will be precluded from 
making a statement after the first amendment is voted, between the 
first and second amendment, after the second amendment is voted and I 
believe that everyone will have that opportunity. But I do not think we 
can continue indefinitely in a situation where there can be no vote on 
any amendment and we simply continue with these statements.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly.
  Mr. NICKLES. This is the proposal--correct me if I am wrong --that 
just came out, the latest Clinton-Mitchell proposal 3. This has been in 
print, what, since Saturday? Saturday is the first day this it was 
available to Senators?
  Mr. COATS. Friday at 5.
  Mr. NICKLES. I am informed by Senator Coats Friday at 5. There are 
significant changes--correct me if I am wrong--there are significant 
changes between this proposal and the previous proposals.
  Mr. MITCHELL. There were a total of five changes, some of them 
changing one word. All of the changes were listed on a single sheet of 
paper.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the majority leader will yield, to give an example, I 
did a lot of homework on the leader's proposal, but it was on the first 
proposal on things like nonconformance to standard benefit plans and 
there was a 35-percent penalty for nonconformance. I have been told by 
my staff today that was replaced by a $10,000 civil penalty.
  My point being, I have not raised that on the floor because I want to 
study it a little bit more. We have only had this, I guess, Friday 
evening--most of us have seen this proposal on Monday for the first 
time. This is the most expensive or extensive expansion of Government 
proposed in a long time.
  I see a list of 133 changes that were made since the first proposal, 
sections anyway. I would like to know a little more about it before we 
start making amendments that are so vitally important.
  There are other proposals as the majority leader knows. Some we are 
also looking at. I do not think we are trying to stall, and the 
implication that many of us are filibustering I do not think is 
correct. We are trying to learn what is in the proposal. I think we are 
trying to be serious in our deliberations in doing so because we have 
not had a hearing on this proposal that I am aware of.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, the Finance Committee and the Labor 
Committee held more than 50 hearings between them. The Labor Committee 
completed action on its work more than 2 months ago; the Finance 
Committee more than 1 month ago. The overwhelming majority of 
provisions in that bill are drawn from the work of those two 
committees, which have been well known to most Senators for a very long 
period of time.
  Mr. President, we can stand up here and talk about the length of the 
bill and how much study is necessary. We have had a survey made of 
legislation over the past several years, their length and how much time 
there has been to review them, and it provides some very interesting 
results which I will not bother to go into now.
  The fact of the matter is, we are going to be on this for some time. 
There has been nothing to preclude Senators from carefully reviewing 
it. The reality is that we have been prevented from voting on any 
amendment, on a single amendment, over this period of time, and we 
believe that it is appropriate that we begin to do so.
  I understand the Senator's concern, and I know that he is going to 
study the measure very carefully and perhaps have some amendments to 
it. We have been prevented from voting on any amendment and have been 
prevented from taking any action until now.
  That is available to our colleagues under the rules, and there is 
only limited recourse that a majority leader has under those 
circumstances. One has been to call for procedural votes. I 
deliberately refrained from doing so on Saturday because I had not 
given prior notice of it to Senators, and I try very hard not to take 
any action without prior notice. I have limited the number of those 
votes to one today.
  I simply want to make clear, so there can be no misunderstanding on 
anyone's part, if we have not been able to have a vote on an amendment 
or amendments by tomorrow evening, if we have been prevented from doing 
so, then the Senate will remain in continuous session; there will be 
procedural votes at any time without any prior notice so that we can 
get moving on this bill.
  If Senators then wish to speak in an unlimited way, they, obviously, 
have that right under the rules, and I accept that fact. But we are not 
going to have a situation where one party uses the rules to the full 
extent without the other party responding within the rules in the only 
manner that is available.
  So I simply say to my colleagues, we will stay in session this 
evening for as long as anyone wishes to talk. Perhaps some of the 27 
Senators who want to give 4-hour speeches will grace us with them this 
evening. We will come back at 9:30 tomorrow morning, and if we are 
still in this situation by tomorrow evening--that is, prevented from 
voting on any measure--the Senate will remain in session on a 
continuous basis. And in the event that quorum calls are put in, then 
procedural votes can occur at any time thereafter without any prior 
notice.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PACKWOOD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, let me correct the record first. When I 
indicated we had, I think I had 27 left, as a matter of fact, to do 
opening statements at that time, I thought I said 2 or 3 who might want 
to speak 4 hours. Most have been speaking a half hour, 20 minutes, 45 
minutes. My hunch is our opening statements, depending on how we divide 
up the time--if we did it straight, I would say in a day; if we divide 
up the time, 2 days, assuming the Democrats fill up an equal amount of 
time, and they have so far.
  But here is the problem we face. This bill does change. The Senate 
may recall that I asked after Mitchell 1 what had happened to the 
number of residents and interns and general practitioners, and I was 
assured it had been dropped out of the bill. I then discovered it has 
not been dropped out of the bill; it has been changed to a commission, 
and the commission is directed to find certain numbers of how many 
people are going to be residents and medical students, even though two 
Senators assured me it was out of the bill. It was not.
  It takes time to find it. Now I have heard--I do not know if it is 
true--that the 35-percent tax penalty you are assessed if you do not 
offer the standard benefit plan has been changed to $10,000 per 
employee. I do not know that. Those are not insignificant changes.
  So in fairness, we should have time to do that. I am not going to 
argue with the leader for a moment on that. We will finish our opening 
statements in a day or a day and a half, but I hope the leader is not 
saying that he regards it somehow as an abuse of the rules--I am not 
going to say it violates them, because he clearly says we are within 
them--if we come over here and we want to spend a day on the tax titles 
of that bill and go down the taxes one at a time and say who it is 
going to affect and here is how it affects them. I hope just for the 
sake of motion--and that is what I sense it is--the majority leader 
says we will have procedural votes. That is just what we had. I 
suggest, a rollcall of absent Members, I say to the majority leader, if 
that is your idea of motion, Einstein is right.
  That is not motion. That is a vote. It does not show us making any 
progress. Progress maybe is when we have a chance to argue this bill on 
the merits which is what we have been trying to do. I do not think 
there has been a speech yet on either side that was not addressing the 
issue. This was not Huey Long reading the telephone book. They are 
statements on the bill, which I would hope the leader does not think is 
an abuse of the rules.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I did not use the word ``abuse'' of the rules. Those 
are the words of the Senator from Oregon.
  Second, I have seen and heard many filibusters in which the Senators 
talked about the bill. The fact that someone is talking about the bill 
does not mean that it is not a filibuster or a delay. There is simply 
no correlation between the two, and it is, in my judgment, wholly 
illogical to suggest that because someone has been talking about the 
bill they are not engaging in delay. The suggestion that the only way 
one can delay is to read the telephone book is, of course, inconsistent 
with both reality and the past practice of the Senate.
  With respect to changes in the bill, the Senator from Oregon has 
repeatedly attempted to create the impression that that is somehow an 
unusual circumstance, that somehow there is something wrong or fishy 
with it.
  I look forward to the time when the Senator from Oregon offers his 
bill as an amendment. I fully expect there will be changes in it, 
perhaps there will not. We will consider that at the time. But every 
Member of the Senate knows that legislation changes in process. It is 
an ordinary event. It occurs with respect to most of the legislation we 
have here. And that really in my judgment is not a serious argument.
  I have described the circumstances as I believe they exist and have 
attempted to respond to them in a manner that I believe most fair and 
appropriate under the circumstances. The Senator is the one who has 
chosen to use other words, and that is his right, of course. I believe 
that we should proceed in a manner that I have suggested, and to the 
extent that I have authority to do so, that is the manner in which we 
will proceed. Senators are free to remain here this evening.
  I would note that after I announced last Friday there would be no 
more votes, although we were told that there were 27 Republican 
Senators who wanted to make opening statements, only two chose to 
speak. And that is the point that confirms the point I was making, that 
there was ample opportunity then. Any 1 of the 27 who wanted to do so 
could have spoken then for any length of time. Other than two 
relatively brief statements, none chose to do so.
  And so we are simply, I repeat, not going to get into a situation 
where, under the guise of wanting to make 27 statements of 4 hours 
each, we are not permitting action to occur on any amendment or any 
subsequent matter with respect to this bill and then being unwilling to 
stay to give those speeches when the Senate is in session and available 
to permit such speeches to occur.
  Therefore, I believe that the decision I have made is the fair and 
appropriate one under the circumstances and I need not repeat it here.
  The Senator from Ohio had asked, and then I will yield to the Senator 
from Oklahoma following that.
  I yield to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I have been around here about 19 
years, and in the 19 years I have been here I have seen filibusters and 
I have seen majority leaders on the floor of the Senate and with no 
exception, no disrespect to any of his predecessors, this majority 
leader has been more patient, more considerate, more concerned that 
everyone be given a fair opportunity than anybody I have ever seen in 
that position. And I do not say that disrespectfully of his 
predecessors. He leans over backward to be fair. He is patient. He is 
far more patient than any of us would be under the circumstances.
  He is well aware of the statements that have been made by the Senator 
from Texas and other Senators as well that they will do everything 
possible to keep this bill from becoming law, or an amended version of 
this bill, who are determined that there be no health care legislation 
enacted by this session of the Congress.
  He has been patient. When an amendment was offered by Senator Dodd 
and many of us were anxious to move forward and vote on it, either vote 
it up or down, he was patient; he was restrained.
  I just want to commend him for saying that he will keep us in session 
around the clock so that we can move forward on national health care. A 
filibuster by any other name is a filibuster. When you keep the Senate 
from moving forward and acting on the legislative process, that is a 
filibuster. You can say that you need all the time, that 27 speakers 
need to speak but the fact is you at some time let some legislation 
move forward, let the legislative process move forward.
  But that is not what is happening on the floor of the Senate. It is 
one delay after another. And this cute idea of how much a bill weighs, 
well, many of you were here when the tax bill was here, which was much 
higher than that. You were not worried about what it weighed because 
you were taking care of some of the special interests who were being 
provided for in that tax bill.
  This is a bill that does not take care of the special interests; it 
takes care of the interests of all of the American people who want a 
national health care program. And delaying it, delaying the Senate from 
moving forward on this legislation is irresponsible. We ought to move 
forward. If we have the votes, we have them. If we do not have the 
votes, we ought to lose. But all I hear is talk, talk, talk. And the 
American people say, ``What are they doing there on the floor of the 
Senate?'' They are not doing much.
  I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you have 
the votes and you have the amendments, come forward with them. You may 
win. I read all these different things in the newspapers about this 
group and that group and all the groups that are making special kinds 
of deals. If you have something and you have the votes, then vote it up 
or down and maybe you will prevail.
  Let us get on with the business of the Senate, but let us--more 
importantly than the business of the Senate--move forward to enact or 
defeat, if that be the will of the Senate, a national health care 
program. Mr. President, 260 million Americans expect no less of us. 
What we are doing here is playing games. We are playing political 
games, games that are not of credit to the Members of the Senate, games 
that are of no credit to the political system. I think it is high time 
we get on with the business of the Senate, that we pass a national 
health care bill or defeat it.
  I think the leader is to be commended for saying that we will stay in 
session. I hope we would stay in session as of tonight. I was prepared 
to start early. But it is his will--and he is the leader--that we wait 
until tomorrow night in order to start working overnight. We have 
worked overnight in the Senate on previous occasions, and it was 
productive; it really gets a lot of the attention of the Members of 
this body. They realize what is going on. Under the circumstances now, 
some do not know what is going on. They just know it is delay and delay 
and delay.
  And so I say, Mr. President, I commend the majority leader. I am 
proud of him and to be on his team in trying to move forward a national 
health care bill. I think we have had too much delay already, and I 
think we ought to get about our business.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank my colleague.
  I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the majority leader will yield.
  Mr. MITCHELL. May we have order, Mr. President, so the Senator may be 
heard.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the majority leader will yield, we have had the 
Finance Committee bill, correct me if I am wrong, on the floor of the 
Senate for 2 weeks.
  Let me amend that. We have had the Mitchell No. 1 proposal on the 
floor for 2 weeks. Is that correct? How long has the original Mitchell 
proposal been on the floor? I will ask the majority leader, how long 
have we had the original Mitchell proposal?
  Mr. MITCHELL. I stated in my earlier remarks it was produced on 
Tuesday, August 2. That is my recollection.
  Mr. NICKLES. Today is August 15, so it has been 13 days.
  We have a list of section changes that were made to the original 
proposal. I might mention the original proposal was on the floor for 
some time, and I think I counted 139 section changes, including a 
change to every title in the bill. Has there been a list of 
explanations of what the changes were section-by-section so we would 
know?
  Mr. MITCHELL. I am sorry; I was distracted.
  Mr. NICKLES. Has there been a list or an explanation--there are 139 
section changes from the original Mitchell proposal. Has that list of 
changes and an explanation of those changes been submitted so we can 
look at that without having to try to reread the entire proposal?
  Mr. MITCHELL. The section changes are identified.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the majority leader will yield, I know the section 
changes are listed. That is 139, but that does not tell us what change. 
I have tried to read the first proposal, and I sort of got started in 
the second proposal, and then was informed by staff last Friday that 
there was a third proposal which we had, I guess, received Friday 
evening. I was not aware of it. And I have started trying to study it.
  I am trying to figure out if there is a list of changes. The majority 
leader said they were not significant changes from the second proposal 
to the third proposal. If we could have a list of those changes, that 
would help us because some of us--in contrast to my good friend from 
Ohio--some of us are trying to understand what we have on the floor so 
we know what we should be considering.
  There are some big changes that have taken place between Mitchell 1, 
Mitchell 2, and Mitchell 3. I think it would help us if we could have 
an explanation.
  Mr. MITCHELL. We will do our best. I want to note that some changes 
were made at the request of the Republican Senators. I feel it is an 
irony to be criticized by Republican Senators when we are trying to 
accommodate other Republican Senators. But I understand it is all part 
of the process. We will do the best we can to accommodate.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the majority leader would yield, I am not being 
critical. I am trying to find out what is in the legislation. When you 
get a sheet which says 13 sections are changed, that means a very 
significant revision. I do not know how many revisions were made in 
Mitchell 3. But we only had Mitchell 3 on the floor of the Senate 
Saturday and today. I do not think we are being dilatory or prolonging 
the process to try to find out what is in this proposal if it is just 
laid down on Friday. And to insist on amendments specifically when we 
do not really know what is in this bill, I think is premature.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, we have had a lot of theater here in the 
Senate holding up bills and referring to the length and complexity.
  This is a tax reform bill of 1984 when the Republicans were in the 
majority. The bill is 1,517 pages long, and 52 out of 53 Republicans 
voted for it. We searched the record, and we cannot find where a single 
Republican complained about the length and complexity. I am sure that 
all of those Republican Senators who are complaining about my bill read 
every word of this bill before they voted on it--[Laughter]--and could 
answer questions about every single provision in the bill. Let everyone 
outside this Chamber understand what everyone inside this Chamber knows 
is going on.
  Mr. NICKLES. Would the majority leader yield?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Such a long bill as this are common bills. We have had 
many of them. We have voted on them. The Senator has a perfect right to 
debate and criticize alternatives to the bill. But let us not go on 
with this kind of game that somehow the length of the bill or the 
changes to the bill are what is causing the events here.
  Did the Senator vote for this bill?
  Mr. NICKLES. I am not sure.
  Let me ask majority leader a question. Was that bill not reported out 
of the Finance Committee and did we not have more than 48 hours to look 
at the bill?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Let me tell the Senator. He did vote for it.
  Did the Senator read this whole bill?
  Mr. NICKLES. No.
  Let me ask the majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Did the Senator know everything in this bill before he 
voted on it?
  Mr. NICKLES. I doubt that, too.
  If the majority leader would answer this question: Was this bill not 
reported out of committee and available with the committee report? Was 
that bill not on the desk of Senators for more than 48 hours, more than 
24 hours before Senators were asked to vote on it?
  Mr. MITCHELL. I do not know how long it was on the floor. But I know 
one thing. This discussion has gone from providing good information to 
no information.
  I think we have all had--at least I have had all I care to say about 
the length and weight of the bill, and the changes. And the Senator had 
asked me to yield for that purpose. Is there anything further he wishes 
to add with respect to that?
  Mr. NICKLES. I did ask the majority leader; I would like a section-
by-section analysis or a definition of the changes on these 13 
sections. That would help us in our analysis of the bill so we do not 
have to start all over on this new proposal which we have only had on 
the floor of the Senate basically for 1 day. If one is available--I 
would think somebody put these 139 changes together--it would be nice 
if they would share them with the minority so we may have a chance to 
analyze those changes as well. They may well be changes for the better. 
There may be changes and questions from both sides.
  I would like to know what is in this bill to some extent, since it 
has only been on the floor basically for 24 hours, before we start 
amending.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, in the Senator's own words, the bill was 
available on Friday. By any calendar, that is more than 24 hours in the 
day. It is a small point. But I think it illustrates what is going on 
in this debate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Might I inquire? I did not get the nature of that bill 
you were holding. What is that?
  Mr. MITCHELL. It says, ``That the bill from the House of 
Representatives (H.R. 4170) entitled `An Act to provide for tax reform, 
and for other purposes,' do pass with the following amendments:''
  It says ``Title I--Tax Reforms Generally,'' and ``* * * may be cited 
as the `Deficit Reduction Tax Act of 1984.' ''
  Mr. DOMENICI. So it is a reconciliation bill, not a freestanding bill 
like the one we have. It is not subject to amendments, only motions to 
strike, and debate is limited by operation of law, not by the normal 
rules of the Senate.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Which is an even better argument. I thank the Senator 
for making my point.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is not a better argument. It means that we have an 
opportunity here to amend this bill, and debate is open on this bill.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I have no desire to hold the floor. I 
made my statements. Unless any Senator has a further question, I would 
yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.
  Mr. GRAMM. I would like to make a couple of points.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Senator, I am going to yield the floor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, is it not the case that Senators must 
address the Chair?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the President.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I have said what I intended to say, and 
I will repeat it now so there can be no possible misunderstanding.
  There will be no further votes this evening. The Senate will resume 
consideration of this measure at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. The Senate will 
remain in session this evening for as long as any Senator wishes to 
speak on the subject.
  If by tomorrow evening we continue in a situation where no vote has 
been permitted to occur on any amendment to the bill, then the Senate 
will remain in session thereafter, and procedural votes may occur at 
any time without notice.
  I want to repeat that. This is the notice to all Senators, that 
procedural votes may occur at any time with no further notice beyond 
the notice now being provided.
  I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me make a couple of points.
  First of all, we have been operating under a time agreement where 
each side has controlled half the time. I am not aware of there being a 
quorum call during this debate. Members have come to the floor, they 
have spoken on the bill, and they have had an opportunity to tell the 
American people where they stand on one of the most important issues 
considered by the Senate in a quarter of a century. We are now in the 
process of narrowing down the list of Senators who still would like to 
give their opening statements. Clearly the majority leader has every 
right to hold us around the clock.
  I would like to make two points. First, when the amendments come, 
they will come in a torrent. I would predict that this week will not 
end without the distinguished majority leader standing up and trying to 
stop these amendments rather than inviting more.
  Second, let me say that we all understand the rules of the Senate. 
When the distinguished majority leader opposed cutting the capital 
gains tax rate, he actually was willing to engage in a real filibuster. 
We disagreed with him, but we respected him for it, and he killed the 
capital gains tax rate cut. When the distinguished Senator from Ohio 
wanted to stop reform of product liability, he killed that bill through 
debate and through a filibuster. We did not agree with him, but we 
respected his right.
  So here is my point. We are not in a filibuster now, and everybody 
knows it. We have been operating under an agreement where debate time 
has been equally divided. We have alternated from side to side, and 
Senators on both sides of the aisle have made opening statements. I do 
not see how anybody could call this anything remotely similar to a 
filibuster.
  So simply asking that everybody have a chance to understand the bill 
and to make an opening statement is not, I believe, unreasonable. But 
if the Senate Majority Leader wants to hold the Senate in session 24 
hours a day, he has a right to do that, and we will all be prepared. 
The point is that when the amendments come, they will come in a 
torrent, and they will not stop.
  Third, when we have a filibuster--if that is what it takes to stop a 
government takeover of health care--people will know it, and they will 
not have to speculate about it. I am hopeful that we can adopt 
amendments, that we can fix this bill, that we can improve the system, 
and that we can preserve consumer choice. If we can do that, then I 
think we can move forward. I do not think we hasten the day we complete 
the bill by forcing Senators to begin voting on something when 
demonstrably the vast majority of the Members of the Senate are only 
now becoming conversant with this bill. I think that is the bottom 
line.
  I think the American people understand that. The point I want to make 
is that we have been continuously debating this legislation. I do not 
remember there being quorum calls during this debate. We have an 
amendment pending, and people have a right to debate it. People have 
continued their opening statements. Maybe the process will speed up by 
staying in session 24 hours a day, and maybe it will not. I do not 
know. But the point is, I do not think anybody can make a reasonable 
argument that there has been a filibuster. There has been an orderly 
process, mutually respectful on both sides, where people have made 
opening statements.
  But when people are ready for amendments, be ready. They will come, 
and they will come in a torrent. I want to make this point, having 
listened to our dear majority leader--my guess is that by the end of 
the week, the majority leader will be standing by the same desk with 
the same smile urging us to stop these amendments.
  (Mr. MATHEWS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I have listened with interest and 
attention, as I always do, to the Senator from Texas, particularly with 
his reference to trying to rush on the bill that people had not read. 
As memory often does, it took me back to my first year in the Senate 
when the House of Representatives took up a bill that bore the 
Senator's--and then Representative's--name. I think it was called 
Gramm-Latta.
  I recall reading with interest the stories at the time about how it 
was slapped together too hurriedly in the House, and that someone had 
written down his girlfriend's phone number, and that appeared on one of 
the pages of the bill. It was a Xerox, not a printed copy. Dozens of 
House Members protested about trying to rush through this massive bill 
before anyone had a chance to read it, and it was put together in such 
slap-dash fashion that there were blank pages, blank sections, 
handwriting, girlfriends' phone numbers, and all other kinds of things.
  I just remark with amazement at the Senator's words now about this 
bill, in the light of that history. But I thank him.

                          ____________________