[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 102 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7750-S7751]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I had hoped that we could come to some
agreement with regard to these numerous matters that we had taken up,
but it does not look like that is going to be possible; therefore, I
intend to ask unanimous consent again on a number of items.
There has been a concerted effort on behalf of the chairman of the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski, and the
Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, and the Senators from Nevada to see
if an agreement could be reached.
I thought we had one that was time-consuming but fair to all
concerned, but at the last minute it appears that that is not possible
after an effort to get an agreement that would have allowed the nuclear
waste issue to be brought up later on in July, I think the 23d, for
limited debate, a vote on cloture, then bringing it back up after the
August recess, the first day we are back, with a vote and then 30 hours
of debate, and then a vote on final passage, and then go to conference.
That is an awful lot of time when the Senate has limited time to do
its work, but it is a way to allow the Senators from Nevada to make
their point and to get this issue resolved. But then we find, no; they
want to reserve the ability to add three more hurdles to filibuster and
get votes on going to conference. That was a river too far. There is a
limit to what we can do in terms of agreeing to what is obviously just,
you know, a dilatory agreement. So it was not acceptable in that
condition.
We will be in session tomorrow. Hopefully we can make some progress
then. If not, we will go next Tuesday to the cloture vote. But it does
gridlock the Senate. The inability to get this agreement between the
key players ties up the Department of Defense appropriations bill and
ties up everything else that is pending around here. I think that is
really unfortunate because we need to get the agreement on these issues
if at all possible.
Perhaps there has been some positive result of our discussions
earlier today. At least now I do have something in writing with regard
to the medical savings accounts. I just received it within the last 15
minutes. I will take a serious look at it and discuss it with the key
Senators involved on the Republican side in the House and Senate. We
need to get this done.
I still find it indefensible that we have not appointed conferees on
health insurance reform for 80 days. I have the conferees. It is a fair
division. Even if we get an agreement on the medical savings accounts,
we still are going to need a conference to agree on the final
[[Page S7751]]
details of exactly what the rest of the bill will entail even though
almost everybody knows what is in it. But we need to make sure that the
Senators and the Congressmen on both sides have a chance to go over it
and make sure that the words are as we think they are supposed to be.
So I am very disappointed about this. I even wondered once again if
there was an intent not to have any votes tonight or tomorrow from the
very beginning. The Senator from South Dakota, the Democratic leader,
assured me that is not the case, and I accept his word. But it sure
looks to me like maybe there was some knowledge that there were not
going to be any votes tonight.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?
Mr. LOTT. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. DASCHLE. The majority leader raises the question on the floor, so
I think it is important that I again reiterate to him for the Record
that there was absolutely no desire on my part to avoid doing business,
whatever the business may be. There are obviously some very serious
questions that the distinguished Senators from Nevada have attempted to
raise in light of their concern on nuclear waste. But at no time have I
instructed members of our caucus that they should feel free to leave.
Our desire is to get some work done, regardless of whether we make a
great deal of progress or not, at least to be here to try to get the
work done. I have emphasized that. I cautioned them not to leave
because there could be votes either tonight or tomorrow. I reiterate
that statement now, as I did this afternoon in our Democratic policy
committee. So I think that point ought to be very clear to everybody. I
hope we can put that rumor to rest once and for all.
Mr. LOTT. I appreciate that assurance.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield to the Senator.
Mr. LEAHY. I want to totally confirm what the Democratic leader has
said. I am one of the more senior Members on our side, and I certainly
would be one who would have known had there been any such plan. I can
assure both leaders that had there been such, I would not be here
talking to the two Senators, I would probably be on the front porch of
my farm in Vermont right now planning to spend the weekend seeing
constituents and working from my computer connection in Vermont rather
than here.
So I can assure both my friends, who are my friends, the two leaders,
that had there been any such plan on this side, first, I would have
known about it, but, second, I would be in Vermont by now.
Mr. LOTT. Having been through good times and bad times with the
Senator from Vermont, that is very comforting. I accept that, and I
thank the Senator for that assurance.
Can I inquire of the Democratic leader if there is a possibility we
could get an agreement on the taxpayers bill of rights tonight? I
thought we kind of worked through that. I think it could maybe be some
sign of good faith here if we could get that done. Again, it is
bipartisan. The American people deserve it. Why do we not do it? If it
would be possible, I would like to try to get that agreed to tonight.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, responding to the distinguished majority
leader, we have consulted with the senior Senator from Ohio, Senator
Glenn. It is my understanding that, on the assumption that we can
insert in the Record at the time of the consideration of H.R. 2337 a
colloquy between Senators Roth and Glenn concerning confidentiality of
records, I think we would be prepared to move the taxpayers bill of
rights. That is assuming, of course--and the distinguished majority
leader has been very good about moving these judges and keeping them
ahead, but I would like to do that as well today if we could.
Mr. LOTT. If we could get this done, then we could maybe--I have
always maintained that the only way you get these things moving is to
get them moving one at a time. If we get a little reciprocity, we get a
little something here and something there, then we can get this
locomotive moving again.
Mr. BRYAN. Would the majority leader yield for a question?
Mr. LOTT. Let me respond to the taxpayers bill of rights. It is my
understanding, with regard to Senator Glenn's concerns, that the
Finance Committee chairman has agreed to move, in a future appropriate
tax bill, Senator Glenn's amendment to impose criminal penalties for
the unauthorized browsing of confidential taxpayer information by IRS
employees. I believe that is the assurance that he wanted. That is my
understanding, and I feel sure that would be lived up to.
Mr. DASCHLE. I am informed that that is the commitment he was looking
for. On that basis, I think we would be prepared to move to that
particular piece of legislation.
Mr. BRYAN. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to.
Mr. BRYAN. What is the nature of the unanimous-consent agreement that
is being propounded?
Mr. LOTT. I did not actually propound one. I am asking whether it is
possible that the concerns that have been raised have been worked out.
I understand they have been, and this would be a unanimous-consent
request to pass the taxpayers bill of rights. In view of that, let me
go through, then, some requests.
____________________