[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11937-S11938]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 3539, the 
     F.A.A. bill:

         Larry Pressler, Fritz Hollings, John McCain, Kay Bailey 
           Hutchison, John Ashcroft, Ted Stevens, Slade Gorton, 
           Bill Frist, Trent Lott, Fred Thompson, Al Simpson, 
           Craig Thomas, Conrad Burns, Frank H. Murkowski, Olympia 
           Snowe, Wendell Ford.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to read or present a 
statement as to what I am doing so everybody will understand exactly 
what is going on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please be in order. Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there is broad bipartisan support for this 
legislation in its present form. So the purpose of this action just 
taken is to produce a cloture vote with respect to the FAA conference 
report.
  Since Senator Kennedy and others have blocked consideration of that 
conference report and are insisting on the report being read by the 
clerk, this cloture vote is only on the motion to proceed to the 
conference report. As all Senators know, the motion to proceed to a 
conference report is not debatable. Therefore, under the Senate rules, 
a cloture vote to limit debate is not necessary.
  However, this vote, if invoked, would represent to the Senate that 
the votes are, in fact, there to adopt the conference report, and I 
believe it would be an overwhelming vote, probably well over 65, maybe 
70 votes. I hope that the objectors will see their way clear to allow 
this vote to occur yet tonight.
  That was one important point I wanted to make so that everybody would 
be on notice we could have a vote tonight, and if the prerequisite 60 
votes are obtained, they realize this bill is going to go forward, the 
Senate intends to adopt the conference report immediately following the 
cloture vote or after a brief period of debate.
  So I urge all colleagues to consider this request, and I will be 
visiting with the Democratic leader, who has been working with me 
trying to find a way to move this legislation through to conclusion.
  I remind our colleagues that if we did change it, even, and send it 
back to the House, there is no guarantee that it would get through the 
House. In fact, I have been led to believe the House will not accept it 
if there is a change, putting us basically in the same position we are 
in.
  What we need to do is to pass this legislation in the form that it 
presently exists, and it is my intent to move it forward one way or the 
other until we can get an agreement as to how we can come to a 
conclusion, where there is an overwhelming majority, a supermajority of 
the Senate who wants to do this.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the majority 
leader. For those of us who have observed that there was an inclusion 
in the FAA legislation that was targeted to one special interest, one 
special company that would have affected their labor relations, and 
added, and has virtually nothing to do with the FAA--
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is not a debatable motion.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor. Mr. 
President, I believe I have the floor. I asked for recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed to a conference report 
is not a debatable motion.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I asked for recognition. Mr. President, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the 
presence of a quorum.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe it is not debatable, but I rise 
just to say we have not been able to work out anything. The opponents 
of this legislation are insisting on going forward with procedural 
votes, and I think maybe that is the best way to go. So if the Senator 
from Massachusetts wants to make a motion now on a procedural vote 
which goes to the substance of the issue, we should go ahead and have 
that vote, and it could be followed by other votes.


                Motion to Postpone the Motion to Proceed

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send a motion to postpone to the desk 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] moves to 
     postpone the motion to proceed to the consideration of the 
     conference report to accompany H.R. 3539 to October 3, 
     1996.

  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the motion to postpone the motion to proceed.
  On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] 
is absent due to illness.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] 
and the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote.
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 303 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley

[[Page S11938]]


     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Campbell
     Johnston
     Mikulski
  The motion to lay on the table the motion to postpone the motion to 
proceed was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I voted, reluctantly, for the continuing 
resolution. Clearly, we had to pass this measure because, without it, 
vital government functions would have shut down and hard-won 
investments in education and other Democratic priorities would not be 
made.
  We are here, on the last day of the fiscal year, passing a massive 
omnibus bill, because the majority party has failed to do its work. 
Instead of moving through the normal appropriations process, with the 
opportunity to consider individual bills and amendments, we were forced 
to vote, up or down, on a bill put together in only the last few days.
  I object to this process because it does not allow the consideration 
of the resolution's specific provisions that ought to be debated 
separately and out in the open. I have a particular interest in one of 
those provisions, Mr. President, because it affects my constituents in 
western Kentucky. I am referring to the bill's earmark of $3 million to 
create a national wildlife refuge in the Kentucky Counties of Marshall, 
Graves, and McCracken.
  Earlier this month, I announced my intention to offer an amendment to 
the Interior appropriations bill that would have redirected this $3 
million to another wilderness area that is sorely underfunded, the Land 
Between the Lakes. In the interest of keeping the government open, I 
aid not offer that amendment today, but I would like to take a moment 
and explain what is at issue for the people of western Kentucky.
  We have been told, Mr. President, that the provision in the 
continuing resolution is needed because Kentucky is the only state 
without a national wildlife refuge. This is simply not the case. In 
fact, large parts of two Federal wildlife refuges--the Ohio River 
Islands and the Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuges--lie within 
Kentucky. Together, they total about 2,200 acres. In addition to these 
areas, there are numerous state-run wildlife refuges and wilderness 
areas in Kentucky. So when supporters of the refuge tell us that 
Kentucky is the only state without a refuge, they're not telling us the 
whole story.
  When we pass this continuing resolution, Mr. President, we will be 
appropriating $3 million for the refuge. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service tells me that it'll cost another $17 million to actually create 
the refuge. Supporters of the refuge will be back next year, and the 
year after that, looking for more money.
  Meanwhile, the Land Between the Lakes, a 170,000 acre preserve 
located just 15 miles away from the proposed refuge, continues to go 
begging. Due to budget cuts over the last several years, the main 
north-south roadway through the Land Between the Lakes has fallen into 
disrepair; the Brandon Springs Resident Center, which serves 
underprivileged and disabled children from around the nation, has been 
forced to put needed repairs on hold; and the Youth Station, which 
provided environmental education for children, including my own 
grandchildren has closed its doors.
  Mr. President, we will probably hear that the Tennessee Valley 
Authority [TVA] got everything it asked for regarding the Land Between 
the Lakes. Don't be mislead. Last year, the TVA put together an options 
plan for how to commercialize the preserve and replace the federal 
money it receives. Now, the plan to commercialize was soundly rejected 
by Kentuckians. However, the plan points out that, simply to keep the 
Land Between the Lakes running would require $11.5 million annually. 
Reducing basic services to include only basic camping, limited lake 
access and the like would cost $6.5 million. And how much was 
appropriated for the Land Between the Lakes this year? Only $6 million! 
And out of that $6 million is a $900,000 bill for security that used to 
be paid for by the TVA. Clearly, funding for the Land Between the Lakes 
is far from adequate. And without federal support, the Land Between the 
Lakes will be forced to go commercial. I will not stand by and let that 
happen.
  What is likewise galling to me, Mr. President, is that the people who 
live in and around the area of the proposed refuge don't support it. 
The head of the Marshall County Soil and Water Conservation District 
told me that ``our opposition to making a federal wildlife refuge of 
the East Fork of Clark's River stems from the overwhelming opposition 
of landowners and tenants in the proposed area.'' This statement is 
borne out by the letters and phone calls I have received and by 
articles in local papers like the Paducah ``Sun'' and the Murray 
``Ledger-Times.'' A constituent from Benton told me that ``farmers and 
others affected by the proposed refuge should be consulted. We have not 
been contacted.''
  It is possible that sometime today, supporters of the refuge will 
again bring out a list of 57 groups that support the refuge. As I have 
said before, I am sure each one is a fine organization. But not one is 
from the affected counties and the closest one is a hundred miles away 
from where the proposed refuge would be located.
  Now, I want to be clear: I am not opposed to the creation of another 
national wildlife refuge in Kentucky. But I am opposed to creating a 
wildlife refuge that endangers the funding for the Land Between the 
Lakes and doesn't have the support of the Kentuckians who will be 
affected by its creation. A constituent from nearby Crittenden County 
told me that ``it's hard to believe that LBL would continue to be 
properly funded with the addition of a $20 million refuge.'' He's 
right. We should, in the words of Marshall County's judge-executive, 
``take care of what we've got before we open'' a new nature preserve.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, by including this $3 million earmark in 
the continuing resolution, we aren't taking care of what we've got. We 
are taking on another obligation at a time when we are hard-pressed to 
meet existing responsibilities. I hope that next year, the Senate will 
be able to consider all thirteen appropriations bills in the normal 
process so that these matters can be discussed out in the open. The 
people of western Kentucky deserve a chance for their voices to be 
heard.

                          ____________________