[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 135 (Thursday, September 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11336-S11337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                SCHEDULE

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I can seek further recognition for 
comment on our schedule, I know Senators are wondering what is 
happening to the various bills. The pipeline safety bill has basically 
been completed, but it still has one incomplete nongermane matter being 
discussed actively. Hopefully, some resolution can be reached on that, 
and maybe we can pass the bill on a voice vote.
  With regard to NIH reauthorization, it had been my full intent to 
call it up yesterday. We thought we had all the problems worked out. A 
new issue arose at the last minute, and we were not able to get it 
resolved as we went into the night last night. We should not leave 
without the NIH reauthorization. We will make one more effort today. I 
will today at some point call that up. If a Senator or Senators have 
objections, they need to be prepared to come to the floor and actually 
object.
  There is some concern here about how these holds and objections work. 
I do sometimes get concerned that Senators are not available but they 
send word over to put on a hold and will not let it be removed without 
their presence, and then their presence cannot be required. Again, this 
is not directed to the other side of the aisle. It happens on both 
sides of the aisle. It is a poor way to do business. Be prepared to 
object. If you want to object, you have to come and do it.
  With regard to the immigration conference report, that bill and the 
Presidio conference report bill are classic examples of why we have 
problems developing trust between the Congress and the administration. 
For weeks, we have been told the problem with the illegal immigration 
bill was the so-called Gallegly amendment which would have allowed 
States like California not to have to continue to spend endlessly $2 
billion a year for the education of 380,000 or more illegal immigrants' 
children.
  We realized that was a problem. The President made it very clear that 
with the Gallegly amendment attached, he would veto it. We had a 
threatened filibuster. So we proceeded to work out a compromise 
agreement or perhaps even take the Gallegly amendment off the illegal 
immigration bill.
  Eventually, and finally, in an effort to try to have cooperation and 
to attach the illegal immigration bill to the continuing resolution, 
the Gallegly amendment was removed. So we were prepared to go ahead 
with the laboriously developed illegal immigration bill that has been 
worked on literally for years, not just months, with tremendous effort 
by the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Simpson, Congressman Smith of 
Texas, Senator DeWine, and a wide variety of other Senators and 
Congressmen. But then when Gallegly was taken off and the bill was 
ready to go, all of a sudden the administration shows up and says, 
``Oh, gee, by the way, we don't like the provisions that might be 
applicable to legal immigrants in this bill, so if you don't remove 
title V, we will object to its being put in the continuing resolution, 
or if it comes to the floor, we will object to unanimous consent. We 
may even insist on having the bill read in its entirety.'' Absolute, 
total dilatory tactics, insisting we read aloud the entire bill.
  The truth of the matter is, the Gallegly amendment had been used as a 
mask to cover the opposition of the administration to any real illegal 
immigration reform legislation. That is really what is going on here. 
So I am at a loss. We might even say, ``Well, OK, in a good-faith 
effort, we'll remove title V.'' You know what I think they will do? 
They will come and say, ``By the way, we have this problem or that 
problem.'' It is an endless thing.
  The American people overwhelmingly expect and want us to pass illegal 
immigration reform. At some point, I am going to move it forward. If 
there is objection heard, we will try to go on from there. If they 
insist on reading, we will just have to have a process to make it clear 
the Democrats are killing illegal immigration, even without the 
supposedly controversial Gallegly amendment.
  The next step: the Presidio parks bill, a bill that has been in the 
making not months, not 2 years, but at least 4 years, a bill that has 
41 States affected by preservation and parks and conservation. Is it 
perfect? I am sure it is not. I am sure there is some project or two 
Senators would like to have in there or some provisions maybe the 
administration may not like. This is not the end of the world. This is 
an authorization bill. The administration is in charge of the Park 
Service. They still have to get appropriations. If there is a problem, 
they don't have to support the funding.
  Again, we were told, well, there are problems with the Tongass 
language dealing with Alaska, there is a problem with the boundary 
waters in Minnesota. There were four or five provisions singled out as 
being veto bait.
  To the credit of the chairman and Members on both sides of the 
Capitol, and both parties, they said, ``We will take these 
controversial provisions out.''
  Now we have an omnibus parks bill, important for the preservation of 
the future. There is tremendous support for the Presidio bill. We can 
move this bill. We were ready to go. It was already passed 
overwhelmingly in the House, and it is in the Senate. Then word comes 
up, down--whatever--from the White House, ``Oh, gee, we have these 
other little problems.'' Not one, not two, not three, not four. ``We 
have these other problems.''
  I think our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were stunned. 
As a matter of fact, this bill has the support of the Senators from 
California, I believe, who attended a press conference.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. The majority leader is correct that we are anxious for 
this bill. We were pleased, Senator Feinstein and I, to go to the press 
conference, but we had not read the 700 pages of the bill. But we do 
hope very much, as I know you do, that we can work all these problems 
out. And we do stand ready.
  I would say to the majority leader, on behalf of my leadership, we 
are ready to enter a time agreement on this veto message override. We 
were hoping to start probably at 9 and finish probably at 12. We have 
had many colleagues come over for the last 2 days in morning business, 
as I am sure my colleague is aware, to speak about this issue. We think 
in 3 hours, the time equally divided, we could have voted at noon. The 
problem we had on your side was they did not want a vote at noon. So I 
just want to make it clear that there is a great willingness to work 
with the majority leader to get this done and to move on. I share his 
hope that we can work out our problems. I certainly stand ready, as a 
Senator from California who has much at stake on both of these bills 
that my colleague referred to.
  Mr. LOTT. If I could respond, Mr. President.
  I would like for us to see if we could reach a time agreement. If I 
could go back to a little history, there were those who wanted 6 or 7 
or 8 hours today. I said, we have had time to talk about this. We need 
to go ahead and have a final vote; it is a very important issue, but 
wrap it up. There was a little problem in that you and your leadership 
have a luncheon-type rally with

[[Page S11337]]

the President coming today, and you needed time between 12 and 2. And 
we are always trying to accommodate all kinds of Senators' schedules 
coming and going. So there was a narrow window in there where we would 
have it hopefully around 12. That is what I was hoping for. We ran into 
a conflict. We would like to get it around 2, if we can. If we need to 
go to 2:30 because of your luncheon meeting, we can make it 2:30.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my colleague, I know that the Democratic leader 
and the majority leader have talked about this. I know from him that it 
would not be acceptable, because as Senator Dole came here for a 
meeting with Republican colleagues of the House and Senate, so does 
President Clinton and Vice President Gore, they do come here. We 
certainly would all want to be there for that meeting, just as we 
cooperated when Senator Dole was here. Therefore, we would not be on 
the floor between 12 and 2 to debate this matter, and we do not think 
that is appropriate, particularly since this is an issue that needs 
explanation. This is an attempt to override the veto by the President. 
So we thought that was an unfair situation.
  Mr. LOTT. I do not know of any luncheon that goes longer than 2 
hours. Could we then have 1 hour of debate after your luncheon and vote 
at 3?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will confer with the Democratic leader, because we are 
anxious to get done.
  Mr. LOTT. We have the possibility of business luncheons and dinners 
and meetings. I am not complaining about that.
  Mrs. BOXER. When Senator Dole came, I noticed all the Republicans 
were there, as well they should have been. But the fact is we would 
never interfere with you taking a break. We just want to make sure we 
are on the floor as this debate proceeds. So we were hopeful we could 
wrap it up at noon. We cannot wrap it up at noon. If we take a break 
for that 2-hour period and then have a----
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we want to accommodate that luncheon. We 
understand you want to do that. We would honor that. It may be even 
that we could do some other debate during that time. Maybe we can work 
on some of these other issues. Or if you want to vote at 3 o'clock, I 
will be flexible to accommodate your luncheon, but I think we should be 
ready to go to a vote as soon as everybody makes their final points.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will confer with the Democratic leader.
  Mr. LOTT. With regard to the Presidio conference report, we do have 
that pending. At the request of the Democratic leader, we are trying to 
see what the complaints of the administration are. But it sure is hard 
to get to the goalposts when the goalposts keep moving. This is a big 
bill, one of the two or three most important preservation and 
conservation issues of this Congress, maybe the most important. Once 
again, even after we complied with the request to move out certain 
objectionable features, the administration is having problems with it.

  Mr. President, do I have leader time reserved?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Leader time is reserved.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to have time for a statement on 
the issue pending before us. Do I need to use leader time at this point 
in order to proceed on that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may use his leader's time or he 
may use time to lay down the measure and then speak on it while it is 
pending.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I seek recognition under the time that is 
available under the bill, not the leader time. I reserve that for use 
later in the day.

                          ____________________