[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5477-S5480]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                       UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next hour 
be equally divided between Senators Lott and Daschle and, at the end of 
that hour, that Senator Lott be recognized to move to adjourn.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I can inquire of the Senator from South 
Dakota, is it his desire that we not have any further debate at this 
time?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is the desire on the part of many of 
our colleagues to speak longer than the time allotted in the unanimous 
consent request, and it is certainly the desire of our colleagues not 
to allow the Senator the opportunity to adjourn the Senate. For that 
reason, I am compelled to object.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have very important committee work that 
needs to be done. As the Senate knows, the bulk of the work and the 
writing that goes on in the Senate does occur in committees at the 
hearings and markups. We have a very important markup now that we need 
to get done in the Armed Services Committee. The defense of our country 
is, obviously, something we want to pay very close attention to. We 
have less than a week in which the Armed Services Committee needs to 
complete its work.
  I would prefer that we get an agreement that the Armed Services 
Committee, as is always--almost always--the case, be allowed to meet 
with these other committees. I understand the Senator has a problem, 
some objections from his conference. I also would prefer that we have 
an hour of debate equally divided so that Senators who have been 
patiently waiting for quite some time can be heard, including Senators 
here now, and Senator Grams of Minnesota who has been waiting to be 
heard.
  I also had hoped that we could work together and get a time worked 
out whereby we could have extended debate tonight. It doesn't appear 
that we can work that out. So, I would be prepared to proceed at this 
time.
  Does the Senator have any other comment he would like to make before 
I propound a unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader 
mentions the defense markup. I also remind him, as he is very aware, 
there is money in this supplemental for our troops in Bosnia. Time is 
running out there, too. There is virtually no time left for us to get 
the supplemental assistance to the troops in Bosnia. It sends a 
terrible message to them not to address this legislation more 
successfully than we have.
  I can't think of anything more important in that regard, not only to 
address the disaster victims but to address the troops in Bosnia, to 
address all of those who are waiting for some sign that we understand 
how difficult their circumstances are, including people defending our 
country in faraway lands.
  So, I am compelled to object, and I only hope that at some point in 
the not-too-distant future, we are going to be able to resolve this 
matter, because they can't wait any longer.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I also had hoped that we would be able to 
work out an agreement where there wouldn't be objection to my motion to 
proceed to the Birth Defects Prevention Act--this is broadly supported 
legislation; I don't see how there could be objection to it--while we 
continue to work to find ways to move other legislation while 
committees are meeting.
  I understand the pressure that Senators feel on both sides of the 
aisle on other issues, but I don't see why that should cause us to halt 
or prevent us from taking up a very noncontroversial, broadly 
bipartisan supported legislation like S. 419.
  I am also hopeful that this week we could take up the adoption 
legislation that we have been holding in abeyance for a week. And the 
Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine, has done very good work on that and 
I believe is prepared to spend time on the floor when we call up that 
legislation. I hope it will be in the next coming days.
  Let us be clear about what this legislation does, the birth defects 
legislation. No one in this body needs to be told that birth defects 
are the leading cause of infant mortality in this country. They are 
directly responsible for one 1 of every 5 infant deaths. Here is a 
chance to do something about that, not in a week, not in a month, but 
this afternoon with, I am sure, not very long debate but enough debate 
so that the issue can be properly addressed.
  We have spent the last couple of hours or so talking about other 
issues other than this bill which we had hoped to call up and begin 
debating.
  No one needs to be told that every year some 150,000 infants are born 
with a serious birth defect. Here is a chance to do something about 
that.
  Here is a chance to foster the most effective--and, by the way, the 
most cost effective--ways to prevent birth defects.
  We now know that folic acid vitamin supplements can prevent spina 
bifida. We know that programs to promote avoidance of alcohol, 
especially early in pregnancy, can dramatically reduce a whole range of 
birth defects.
  We want to get that knowledge out to those who need it. Senator 
Bond's bill would do that through regional research programs to 
identify the causes of clusters of birth defects.
  His bill, which, by the way, is cosponsored by more than a score of 
Senators on both sides of the aisle, makes the Centers for Disease 
Control the lead agency for surveillance of birth defects and 
prevention activities to reduce their incidence.
  His bill proposes grants to public and nonprofit groups to foster 
public awareness in ways to prevent birth defects. It would also set up 
a National Information Clearinghouse on Birth Defects.
  This legislation, to which there has been objection, is really 
important and is endorsed by a wide range of groups: The American 
Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Mental Retardation, 
the American Hospital Association, the Association of Maternal and 
Child Health Programs, the American Public Health Association, the 
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, the March of Dimes, 
the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the National 
Perinatal Association, the National Easter Seal Society, and the Spina 
Bifida Association.
  On their behalf, I again renew my concern. There has been objection 
to this bill. On their behalf, I ask that we confer and see if we 
cannot find a way to bring up this legislation, if not today, tomorrow, 
while we work on other solutions to other problems.
  It is not a partisan issue. It is not controversial. And all that 
Senator Bond has sought has received support across the political lines 
and he has urged that we take it up this week. It would be different if 
it were controversial or if this were a partisan issue. But it is not. 
It is one that I think we certainly need to get passed. And a lot of 
good work has gone into it. And I will continue to ask that it be 
brought up this week. And I will certainly confer with the leaders on 
the other side of the aisle as we try to find a way to bring to the 
consideration of the Senate legislation that would help with this very 
serious and very difficult problem of birth defects.
  So now I ask----
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield for a comment or question from the 
Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. As I indicated earlier, Mr. President, I am a cosponsor 
of this legislation. So obviously I am very supportive of it. But it 
should be noted this legislation has not had a hearing, it has not been 
marked up in the committee.
  The majority leader--and it is his right to do so--is discharging the 
committee to bring this bill to the floor. Now, that is an abnormal 
procedure. That is not something we do every day. Yet the distinguished 
majority leader has seen fit to bring this bill to the floor without an 
official markup, and then to amend it with an amendment that we only 
saw late yesterday. And so it is really not normal legislative 
procedure to consider a bill of this import, even though there may not 
be much controversy associated with it, to discharge it, to amend it 
with an amendment nobody has seen, and to move in this process.
  So it is not only our concern for the disaster legislation but our 
concern for

[[Page S5478]]

process here that makes me skeptical about the approach the 
distinguished majority leader has chosen to employ in this regard. So I 
would hope we could work together, if we can once get this disaster 
bill passed, to take up the bill, but I really hope we can respect the 
normal order here and allow the committees to move and to consider 
bills and then report them out, put them on the calendar, and take them 
up off the calendar as we would in normal circumstances.

  But I thank the majority leader for his willingness to allow me to 
comment on that particular bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would respond to that, if I could, that 
certainly it is again not controversial. There has been a lot of work 
done on it. There have been hearings on this bill. And I believe an 
almost identical provision, if not identical, was a part of the 
comprehensive health legislation that came up last year. That was a 
different Congress, but it is not as if it is a new idea. It has been 
around for awhile. And a number of Senators are very familiar with what 
it would do, including the Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. President, because he has been so diligent in his effort to wait 
to be heard, and recognizing that it does not appear we are going to be 
able to work out some agreement where he could make a statement, I, if 
I can, yield to the Senator from Minnesota for the purposes of a 
question so that he could at least address a question that frames his 
concerns in this area.
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Leader.
  I just would like to take a few moments to address a couple concerns 
and questions. And as I think we are all very disappointed in the fact 
that yesterday President Clinton vetoed the emergency aid bill which 
would provide $5.5 billion in disaster relief nationwide--and that 
comes with a major portion of those dollars directed toward rebuilding 
and repairing those communities that have been devastated by floods in 
my home State of Minnesota and, of course, the Dakotas--our legislation 
I think sent a very clear message that the people of Minnesota have not 
been forgotten by Congress at this time.
  And I just really am concerned and disturbed by the fact that the 
President has used, as his primary excuse for vetoing the emergency 
flood relief bill, our inclusion of a measure that would go on to 
protect these very same victims this fall from what could become a 
manmade disaster if we do not come to some time agreement between the 
Congress and the President on funding legislation in the budget debates 
coming this fall. So for those reasons, I raised repeatedly on the 
floor that I believe that delivering this bill to the President is of 
utmost importance.
  And I just ask the leader if all considerations have been made or 
taken into account of trying to get this issue to the President again, 
to have him somehow--I would like to remind my colleagues who voted for 
this bill a week ago, that if they say these issues are so 
controversial, why did they then vote and approve this bill by 67 
votes, as the majority leader said, last week and move this on to the 
President?
  So when they say that we are unbending and not willing to compromise 
on the issue, that it is ``our way or no way,'' really that is what we 
are hearing from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, that if it is 
not the President's way, it will be no way.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will respond to the question and comments 
framing that question by the Senator from Minnesota. I appreciate what 
he has had to say. And I appreciate his interest in getting this 
assistance provided. He has been constructive and helpful in that he 
has been suggesting a variety of ways we could try to come to an 
agreement on how to proceed here.
  He is absolutely right that, as a matter of fact, what we passed last 
week was a compromise. There had been funds added, language added. And, 
as a matter of fact, the language dealing with the Government shutdown 
prevention was a compromise provision. Senator McCain, one of the 
original sponsors, along with Senator Hutchison, offered an amendment 
and actually raised the level of funding whereby the Government would 
continue basically at the current year level until an agreement was 
reached on the next year's appropriations bills.
  So it was compromise language. I mean, it should not go without 
people's notice that it got 67 votes here in the Senate. This matter 
can be resolved. It can be done quickly. It could have already been 
dealt with if the President just signed the bill.
  The President is not without tools to work with the Congress. But he 
must understand--and I know the American people understand--that we, as 
representatives of the people, have a coequal voice in this Government. 
We have a right to be heard. And we have a right to have very important 
issues that we are concerned about addressed.
  So I again appreciate the Senator's patience here and his 
suggestions. I know he is going to continue to work with leadership on 
both sides of the aisle and across the Capitol where he served in 
trying to find an appropriate solution to this problem.
  Mr. GRAMS. I thank the majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would also like to inquire of the Senator 
from Texas. Senator Hutchison, had indicated that she had hoped to be 
able to speak. I wonder if she has a question she would like to 
propound at this time because I would be able to yield to her at this 
time, under the rules we find ourselves confronted with, only for a 
question. So I ask that she frame her comments in the form of a 
question.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I was really wanting to question in the arena of a timetable for 
kinds of disaster relief.
  It was indicated by one of the Senators from North Dakota that 
perhaps it was all or nothing, as if the entire supplemental 
appropriations bill was part of an emergency disaster. And I was just 
going to ask the distinguished majority leader if he was not thinking 
that perhaps there are certainly judgment calls that we can make.
  I think the majority leader is saying that if we are going to make 
some very slimmed down bill to provide for emergency assistance--I 
think the distinguished majority leader would agree with me, there is 
also $30 million for plane crash investigations; $6 million to the FBI 
to reimburse New York State, but New York State has had ongoing 
expenses with regard to TWA flight 800; $197 million for the National 
Park Service; $103 million for Fish and Wildlife; $67 million for the 
Forest Service; $20 million for the Bureau of Indian affairs; $585 
million for the Army Corps of Engineers.
  I am just wondering if the majority leader doesn't think that perhaps 
these are supplemental appropriations that are not of an emergency 
nature and that maybe Congress would be able to make a judgment call if 
in fact we were talking about emergency relief. Because it seems to me 
that some of the Senators are saying that, ``Look. We want everything, 
but your issues aren't important. The issue of process, of not being 
able to shut down Government isn't important.''
  It may not be important to someone on the other side of the aisle, 
but it is very important to many people on our side of the aisle that 
we have a process by which we say to people, here is what you can 
expect. Veterans can expect to get their pension benefits on time, 
regardless of whether Congress and the President have not agreed on a 
particular appropriations bill, that Federal employees can expect to 
get their checks on time regardless of whether there is an agreement 
between the President and Congress.
  So, you know, I think that there are a lot of issues. And I sincerely 
believe that it is important for us to set the process of how we are 
going to handle appropriations this year. Perhaps others do not think 
that is important. But to say, ``You take all of our issues. Throw away 
all of yours. And that's the only thing that will be acceptable,'' 
seems to me to be a little unreasonable.
  I just ask the majority leader if he would put all of these other 
supplemental appropriations in the same position as some part of the 
emergency bill that really is an emergency where funds really might not 
be available if there are funds like that?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in responding to the question by the Senator 
from Texas, obviously I think that she

[[Page S5479]]

is suggesting a route that is appropriate. There is a difference 
between a supplemental appropriations in its normal sense and a 
supplemental appropriations that includes some emergency provisions. 
Clearly, they could be separated out and moved as the Senator from 
Texas has suggested.
  I want to commend the Senator from Texas for her work as a member of 
the Appropriations Committee, a member that knows what is in the bill 
and what is not. And I think some Senators have not had an opportunity 
to look at all the things that have been added in terms of language and 
additional spending and programs which may be worthwhile but which are 
much more in the supplemental range, not in the emergency range, and 
also could be dealt with in the regular appropriations process.
  We are in the period of time now in this year when we ought to be 
doing our regular appropriations bills. And the need for a supplemental 
for many of these provisions has been long since past.
  Also, I just have to say, the idea of resolving this issue about the 
annual confusion at the end of the fiscal year, the threats of and in 
fact the shutdowns of programs or Agencies, Departments of the 
Government, that idea originated with the Senator from Texas and 
Senator McCain. They are the ones who said we need to resolve this now, 
not October 1 or October 15 or November 1 when we are going through 
these fiascoes.
  The suggestion was that we solve this problem now. The language that 
was introduced, which was subsequently compromised, by the way, to 
raise the funding above what the Senator from Texas wanted, originated 
from her.
  I challenge anybody in this institution or anywhere to suggest that 
the Senator from Texas is not concerned about the need for the disaster 
assistance or the funds for the Department of Defense. She knows that 
this issue is important, and she also knows it can be resolved. It can 
be resolved quickly and it can be resolved in terms of working out 
language that would serve the American people well in stopping these 
annual Government shutdown activities.
  I commend her for the work she has done, the leadership she has 
provided, and for the fact she continues to say we can work through 
this with language which may be different from what she originally 
started with but with language that is acceptable, or that we go with 
emergency language only.
  I yield to the Senator from Texas for a further question.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I appreciate the distinguished majority leader 
yielding to me for a question because I do have a question. I think it 
is not a matter even of the supplemental appropriations, that they are 
not worthy, but I think timing is the issue.
  I just sense that all of a sudden the ground is shaking. First they 
said, ``Just pass the clean emergency help to the victims.'' That was 
the first thing that was said. Now, then, you said, well, OK, let's 
talk about what is an emergency, and I am seeing all of a sudden a 
different argument, a different argument that says, oh, wait a minute, 
what do you mean, that there might be some parts of this bill that 
would not be part of the emergency?
  In fact, there are billions in this bill that are supplemental. They 
are good. We hope they will pass. But they are not an emergency.
  So if you are going to say that it is not important to provide for 
the orderly transition of fiscal years right now in the first 
appropriations bill that has come on the floor this year--Mr. 
President, I think the distinguished majority leader will agree that we 
have not had another appropriations bill on the floor. If we are not 
going to set the process right now for how we are going to handle the 
transition of fiscal years in an orderly and responsible way, when 
would we do it? Would we do it 1 month before the end of the fiscal 
year so people would not be able to plan, so that we would not know for 
sure exactly what was going to happen, so that Federal employees would 
not know for sure that we would not have another Government shutdown, 
so that veterans would not know for sure that their pension checks 
would be on time?
  I think to say that now all of a sudden it is not just emergency 
relief but also everything in the supplemental appropriation which is 
important to many people in this body--but so is the resolution about 
not shutting down Government important to a number of people in this 
body.
  I think the distinguished majority leader in good faith said, well, 
would you like for us to consider a pared down emergency for anything 
that would not be covered already under the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency funds which we know have at least $2 billion in the 
coffers right now that are going right now to the victims in North 
Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota? The money is going in. There may be 
a few places where it is not going in, so the distinguished majority 
leader, as I understand it, is saying, OK, we should make a list of 
those where there really is an emergency, not supplemental but 
emergency, and would you consider working with us to pass that?
  Now, all of a sudden, it seems that the argument is changing and we 
are saying, oh, no, we not only need the emergency appropriations that 
might not be covered if there are categories like that, but, in 
addition, we must also have all of the supplemental appropriations for 
the National Park Service, for the Fish and Wildlife Service, for the 
Forest Service, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for the Army Corps of 
Engineers, for the Postal Service fund, for the bulk cheese price 
survey, for the food stamp changes, for grants to local education 
agencies. Now, I have no doubt these are important appropriations, but 
are they emergency? That is the question that I ask the distinguished 
majority leader.
  Once he said, ``I am willing to talk about a pared down real 
emergency,'' all of a sudden it seems to me that now we are shifting to 
a different issue. We are shifting now to a whole different argument, 
and they are saying you have to take everything in the bill that the 
distinguished Senators from North Dakota want, take out everything that 
the distinguished Senators on this side of the aisle were hoping to get 
in the way of process to establish a process in the appropriations 
bill, the first one this year.
  It is like saying we have all the cards. But that is not the way 
America is. We work together here. I think we have the ability to 
determine if there are emergencies that are not being met, and if that 
is the issue, then I think we would be able to solve it.
  I just ask the majority leader if he believes that we have the 
ability to determine what is an emergency and what is a supplement.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, clearly, the Senator from Texas, Senator 
Hutchison, is right on this. She knows her business. She is on the 
Appropriations Committee.

  I do not know what the exact figure is but probably of the $8.6 
billion in this supplemental, well over half of it could not remotely 
qualify as disaster. It is probably in the range of $5 billion to $6 
billion of the $8.6 that would not qualify as emergency disaster, 
either because it is not directly needed and/or because it could be 
handled through the regular appropriations bills. Clearly, a large 
portion of this bill would not qualify as emergency disaster. Again I 
do not know the exact amount. We have to hear further from the 
committee members, and I presume we will as the time goes forward.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the majority reader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I will yield if the Senator allows me to make a couple of 
points. I want to go back and reconfirm something I said a moment ago 
to make sure it is correct in the Record.
  The bill that we are trying to get brought up, the birth defects 
bill, is not a new bill. It was one that has had a lot of work, and the 
substitute that we have now is going to be considered when we get 
permission to bring it up. There has been objection to bringing up the 
birth defects bill by the Democrats. It is almost identical to the 
language that was approved by the committee on Labor and Human 
Resources in 1995 and passed the full Senate in September 1996 as part 
of the Health Profession's Education Consolidation and Reauthorization 
Act, S. 555.
  So the Senate is familiar with this. The Senate has worked on it. The 
Senate has voted on it. It is not a new

[[Page S5480]]

issue or one that we are trying to put out without it having been 
considered by committee or having been considered by the full Senate in 
the recent past.
  I want the Record also to reflect that I have tried to get the 
Democrats to agree for the Armed Services Committee to meet, and other 
committees, on very important issues. They have objected to bringing up 
the birth defects bill. They have objected to the Armed Services 
Committee meeting, the Foreign Relations Committee meeting, the Science 
Committee from meeting. I even offered an opportunity for us to divide 
an hour of debate time equally on both sides and to get an agreement 
where we could have extended debate tonight, and I suggested even as 
late as midnight, 6 hours, 7 hours, whatever amount of time that might 
have been called for. But that was not accepted because they would not 
agree for the Armed Services Committee to meet and to do their markup 
work.
  I want to say again, my Democratic colleagues have objected to 
bringing up the birth defects bill, they have objected to very 
important committees meeting with very important witnesses, and a 
markup of the Department of Defense. They have objected to dividing the 
time equally so all Senators can be heard in 10-minute segments of 
their own time, and they have even refused an offer that I have made 
for this debate to go on for an extended period of time, perhaps even 
as late as midnight tonight.
  Now, before I make any further motion, did the Senator from North 
Dakota have a question he would like to ask? And I yield for the 
purpose of a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. I do, and of course the majority leader has the power of 
scheduling in the U.S. Senate. The objection that we raised was an 
objection based on the understanding that the unanimous-consent request 
propounded by the majority leader was that he would remain in control 
at the end of the period of whether we had an opportunity to speak 
again and when we had an opportunity to speak again.
  We have had, on two occasions now, a motion made to adjourn the 
Senate and a vote on that, and the majority leader has then adjourned 
the Senate twice last week and now apparently today, and some of us 
feel very strongly that we wish to continue to discuss and to push and 
prod to see if we cannot get a disaster bill passed without the 
extraneous or unrelated amendments attached to it that have caused a 
veto.
  Now, the reason I rise to ask a question, as I listened intently to 
the question asked by the Senator from Texas--and she indicated to the 
majority leader that this was, really, the only appropriations vehicle 
or the first appropriations vehicle that was available for her to 
exercise an option to deal with the continuing resolution or Government 
shutdown amendment.
  In fact, there is a House appropriations bill on the calendar, H.R. 
581, that the Senator from Texas and others who wish to propose their 
amendment could offer to attach their amendment to. In addition to 
that, there are 13 additional appropriations bills that will follow 
that they can certainly attempt to attach their amendment to.
  But the title of this piece of legislation is an appropriations bill 
making emergency supplemental appropriations for recovery from natural 
disaster and so on. I am assuming that those who decided to attach it 
to this piece of legislation did so because by its very title it is an 
emergency supplemental appropriations bill for recovery from natural 
disasters.
  The Senator from Texas makes the point, as the Senator 
from Mississippi, there are some things in here that are not an 
emergency. That is a quarrel I suspect the Senator would have with the 
Appropriations Committee heads and others. There may well be some 
things in here that are not an emergency. I have no objection to taking 
those things and moving them aside and passing the disaster portions of 
this bill.

  I say that it seems to me, at least viewing it, that those who have 
attached this amendment to this bill have done so believing that this 
bill is a must-pass piece of legislation because it is an emergency 
and, therefore, it is a way of moving their agenda along on this 
Government shutdown amendment. My point is there are 13 more bills. Do 
it on another bill. Do it on the House bill resting at the desk of the 
Senate, but do not do it in a way holding up disaster relief.
  I am happy to propound the question. It is now 2\1/2\ weeks beyond 
the adjournment for the Memorial Day recess, which is the time when we 
should have passed this legislation, 2\1/2\ weeks beyond that, and the 
fact is we are now in a circumstance where it does not appear we are 
any closer to passing a piece of legislation that the President will be 
able to sign. Will the majority leader, at least from the Senate side, 
indicate to us that he feels that we can get this thing passed this 
week in a manner that allows it to be signed?
  Mr. LOTT. I would be willing to work with him in that regard. I think 
we definitely can do it. I believe we will have some time here in a 
moment where maybe we can talk about that.
  Here is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He is 
convening. I have seen him work miracles before, and I know he is 
prepared to do that again this time with the help from the Senators 
from North Dakota and the Senator from Texas.
  Does the Senator from Oklahoma wish to ask a question with regard to 
the situation?
  Mr. NICKLES. If I could just ask a question, because I understand our 
colleagues from North Dakota wish to speak on this issue. I know some 
colleagues on this side of the aisle would like to speak.
  Correct me if I am wrong; did you not offer to allow debate on this 
and other issues, maybe debate as late at 12 o'clock tonight? That is 
almost an additional 8 hours.
  Mr. LOTT. I knew it came as a shock to the Senator from Oklahoma, but 
he is right.
  Mr. NICKLES. I did not want to stay for all of that, but I think the 
Senator from Mississippi, the majority leader, is being generous with 
time.
  If our colleagues are going to object to the offer that the majority 
leader made, I do not think they are showing good faith, and that does 
not increase the likelihood of getting things done.
  Now, correct me if I am wrong; I ask the majority leader this 
question, the majority leader asked permission for the committees to 
meet?
  Mr. LOTT. Correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. And stated his intentions to allow the Senate to be able 
to debate this and other issues on time equally divided; is that not 
correct?
  Mr. LOTT. That is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. My comment would be to the majority leader that I think 
you are being very generous and I hope our colleagues will cooperate.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I appreciate the questioning of the Senator 
from Oklahoma, and I say that the procedure which I am about to carry 
out here has been forced by the fact that we can't get consideration of 
the birth defect legislation, we can't get permission for key 
committees to meet, and we can't get a time agreement on how the debate 
will occur.

                          ____________________