[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 102 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7752-S7753]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--S. 1894

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent during the pendency 
of S. 1894, the Department of Defense appropriations bill, that it be 
considered under the following time restraints: 1 hour on the bill to 
be equally divided in the usual form, 1 hour on all first-degree 
amendments which must be relevant, 30 minutes on all relevant second-
degree amendments.
  I further ask unanimous consent that any rollcall votes ordered with 
respect to the DOD appropriations bill on Friday, July 12, on Monday, 
July 15, occur beginning at 9:30 a.m., on Tuesday, July 16, and 
following the disposition of all amendments, S. 1894 be read for a 
third time, the Senate proceed immediately to H.R. 3610, the House 
companion bill, all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of 
S. 1894, as amended, be inserted, and H.R. 3610 be read for a third 
time, and final passage occur at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, July 16, 
notwithstanding rule XXII, and that no call for the regular order serve 
to displace the Department of Defense appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, as I state that, I want to emphasize no matter what 
happens on the nuclear waste issue, we still have this Department of 
Defense appropriations bill awaiting action. The chairman is here ready 
to go. I am trying to get some order and some reasonable manner in 
which to handle this very important bill.
  I am glad to yield to the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is an objection heard?
  Mr. BRYAN. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is an objection? I thought that was cleared on the 
other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is a cloture motion pending, which I understand 
will ripen into a vote on Tuesday. We are not in session on Monday, but 
it would be Monday if we are in session.
  I regret that very much. This will accomplish the same thing. Under 
cloture, we will have an hour on each amendment, actually have an hour 
on two amendments if you wish to do so, but Mr. President, we have lost 
2 days in the defense bill already. We will have a very tough time to 
try and conference this bill. We are trying our best to work with the 
administration to see if we can get the bill signed once again this 
year. The Senator from Hawaii and I have accommodated the White House 
on several matters already. We are trying to work this out, but we need 
time.
  I think the Senator is putting us in the position where we are not 
going to be able to go out in August if we keep this up. I do not 
understand the objection to this because it is the same thing--if we 
had voted cloture on Tuesday, by definition, we cannot get to it until 
Tuesday, anyway. I do not know why we cannot proceed with this bill.
  The alternative, as far as I am concerned, it is the pending measure 
and I am going to ask the distinguished leader that we just stay in on 
this bill. I can guarantee the Senator we will have some votes tonight 
and tomorrow if we stay in. The bill is the pending measure, and I 
would like to stay in and get going on this bill. I do not know what 
the leader wants to do.
  Mr. REID. Will the leader yield, if the Senator is finished.
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. REID. I respectfully say to my friend from Alaska, through the 
majority leader, that we understand the rules also--maybe not as well 
as the distinguished Senator from Alaska. We feel we know what our 
rights are. If it is the wish of the Senate to stay in tonight, that is 
fine. But I think there is going to be a lot of business conducted.
  We have been willing to play by the rules. To hear that we are 
holding up progress in the Senate is also to understand that we feel 
that a lot of the time being wasted, if not all the time, is based on 
the fact that we have a bill that was brought out that is very 
selective in nature. We have all kinds of other things we need to do. 
The President said he will veto this. We feel the waste of time is not 
on the shoulders of the two Senators from Nevada. I am sure the Senator 
from Alaska did not mean it that way, but in fact if there is some 
effort to threaten, or the fact that we will be in late tonight, I have 
no place else to go. I will be here late tonight.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent we have a cloture vote on the 
defense appropriations bill at 7 o'clock tonight.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield to the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I feel constrained to say, over the last 
recess I had the privilege of being able to fish at home on the river, 
and the men and women from throughout the country kept asking me one 
thing: What is gridlock? Why do we have gridlock? I think the American 
public is getting very disturbed about this. I have to say, it is 
obvious I am getting disturbed.
  We have worked a long time to frame a bill that I think is possible 
to pass both the Senate and come out of conference, and go to the 
President. I think it is one of the most contentious issues facing 
America today, and that is the continued funding of our defense system. 
I do not understand why we cannot get going on it. It has nothing to do 
with nuclear waste. It has nothing to do with delay on nuclear waste. 
Nuclear waste will be the subject of a cloture motion vote on Tuesday. 
I just do not understand why we have to be gridlocked on defense. Of 
all the matters that we ought to be dealing with, it is defense. Why 
should we have a gridlock on defense? The people in this country, I 
think, have a right to ask this Congress why should you gridlock on 
defense? This is a gridlock, as far as I am concerned. We have tried 
for 2 days to get this bill going and the delay has nothing to do with 
defense, I am told, nothing at all. If it has nothing to do with 
defense, why should anyone object to our proceeding with this bill?
  I hope the leader will let me continue. I can show you how we will 
have some votes tonight and tomorrow. I can guarantee you we will have 
votes if we keep going.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I yield for a question.
  Mrs. BOXER. As I listened to the Senator from Alaska, there is a way 
to break through all this.
  As I hear the Senators in Nevada, they will not object to moving to 
the defense bill at all. As a matter of fact, as long as I have known 
them, they have worked hard on those bills, as hard as anyone else 
here. But they are saying, if this particular bill dealing with nuclear 
waste would be pulled, they would not object. If I might ask my 
friends, are they not saying that the reason they are objecting is 
because they are bringing this nuclear waste bill forward?
  Mr. REID. Will the majority leader yield so that I may answer the 
question?
  Mr. LOTT. I yield for the Senator to answer the question.
  Mr. REID. I say to the Senator from California, I am a supporter of 
this bill. I am on the Appropriations Committee. One of the most 
troubling things I have done since I have been in the Senate is to have 
my friend, the senior Senator from Hawaii, come to me and say, ``Can we 
move this bill?'' and I say, ``No.'' There is no one in the Senate I 
have more respect for than the senior Senator from Hawaii.
  We feel that the shoe is on the other foot. We are not the ones 
holding things up. It is being held up because they are moving on this 
bill, which the President said he is going to veto. Maybe we cannot 
continue this forever.

[[Page S7753]]

But it is going to take weeks of the Senate's time on nuclear waste.
  We know what our rights are, and we felt that we offered a reasonable 
proposal to move this along, get the appropriations bills done before 
the September reconvening of the Senate. But this is an issue that is 
important. It is important not only to the people in the State of 
Nevada but for this country. And for us to say we are going to walk 
away from this would be something that we cannot do.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond to the comments. Again, I 
have said several times today that I understand the feelings of the 
Senators from Nevada. I am sympathetic to them. But this legislation 
has been crafted very carefully, in a bipartisan way, by the committee 
of jurisdiction, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It has 
been in the making literally for years. I am under the impression that 
65 Senators will vote to end the debate on this, will vote for cloture.
  How can the majority leader refuse to bring up a bill and try to pass 
a bill of this consequence, which involves radioactive nuclear waste, 
when 65 Senators want an opportunity to vote on it? Now, I understand 
how they feel, but two Senators are thwarting the wishes of 65 Senators 
and their constituents all across America. I have no option but to 
bring up legislation of this importance, which involves that many 
States with that many Senators.
  Mrs. BOXER. May I ask the majority leader this. I understand his 
point, but 74 or so Senators voted for the minimum wage, and we do not 
seem to get action on that. So it is a matter of priorities, I say.
  Mr. LOTT. You got action on it because I worked with your leader and 
we made it happen, and it is going to be acted on and wind up on the 
President's desk.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for one more question?
  Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to, sure.
  Mr. REID. I say, respectfully, to the majority leader, with whom I 
served in the House in a leadership position there and now in a 
leadership position here, that we know you have the right to bring this 
up. But, also, I, the Senator from Nevada, did not work out these 
rules. These rules were worked out many years ago. It started with the 
Constitution and the Senate rules that are in existence. I did not draw 
them up. I am just playing by the rules. The majority leader knew--or 
should have known, as we say in the law--that this would happen. You 
are--and I do not mean ``you'' in the pejorative sense--holding up the 
progress; we are not. We could move on and we could have this bill 
passed, the one now before the body, our defense appropriations bill. 
We could do foreign operations. This should have all been done. But 
there is going to be a lot more delay, I say to my friends, the 
majority and minority leaders. We have certain rights, and we have an 
obligation to protect those.

                          ____________________