[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 27 (Friday, March 13, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1923-S1925]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 2646

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to Calendar No. 227, H.R. 2646, the education individual 
retirement accounts bill, and it be considered under the following 
agreement.
  Before I make this request, I do want to say again how much I 
appreciate all the cooperation we had on the ISTEA, bill. I think it is 
an example of what we can do when we work together on important 
legislation in a bipartisan way, and also across the aisle, the 
bipartisan support we had on the China human rights resolution, and on 
the resolution naming Saddam Hussein as a war criminal.
  This has been a very productive week. I hope we can find a way to do 
the same thing again next week. I would like for us to find a way to 
consider in the fairest possible procedure this very important 
education bill, the Coverdell A+ bill which does include, in addition 
to the Coverdell A+ provisions with regard to saving for your 
children's education, a special provision for a prepaid tuition 
deduction, and for a deduction of graduate education expenses. Those 
last two items were requested by a bipartisan group. We have other 
important matters that I believe will be bipartisan, including dealing 
with NATO enlargement. So I hope we can find a way to come to an 
agreement on how to proceed on these bills.
  So I would like to now go through the agreement that I have been 
seeking. I understand that Senator Durbin will have some reaction once 
I get to the end of this.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the 
reporting of the bill by the clerk, the chairman of the Finance 
Committee be recognized to send an amendment to the desk reflecting the 
Finance Committee action on the Coverdell bill. I further ask unanimous 
consent that following the ascertaining of this consent, Senator 
Daschle be recognized to

[[Page S1924]]

offer his alternative amendment--I understand he had been working on a 
substitute; and I thought it was a good way to start off the debate to 
have the minority offer their alternative amendment--and that no other 
amendments be in order prior to a vote on or in relation to the Daschle 
amendment.
  I further ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to send a 
cloture motion to the desk to the Finance Committee amendment and that 
the cloture vote occur on the committee amendment at a time to be 
determined by the majority leader, after notification and consultation 
with the minority leader, but not before the vote in relation to the 
Daschle amendment. So the cloture motion would not even be filed under 
this request until after the Daschle substitute had been considered and 
dealt with by a vote.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 
XXII be waived and that first-degree amendments be filed 1 hour after 
the cloture vote, with second-degree amendments to be filed within 24 
hours of the cloture vote.
  Before the Chair puts the question to the Senate, let me summarize 
this consent, which I believe is fair and provides for an orderly 
consideration of the education A+ bill.
  The agreement, if agreed to, is that the Senate would now begin 
consideration of this bill. The chairman of the Finance Committee would 
immediately be recognized to offer the Finance Committee action. Then 
Senator Daschle would offer his substitute, whatever version that he 
would like to have, of the legislation. We would have an agreed-to 
period of debate. And then we would have a vote, without any 
encumbrance, on that amendment. Then following that vote, we would have 
a cloture vote, and then the time for that would be determined by 
mutual agreement. If cloture should be invoked, the remainder of the 
consideration of the bill would be governed under the provisions of 
Rule XXII. If cloture is not invoked, the bill would be open to further 
amendments, with no limitation as to time or subject matter.

  If this agreement is agreed to by the Senate, I would, of course, 
give Members ample notification as to when the two votes would occur, 
those being a vote with respect to the Daschle amendment and the 
cloture vote.
  So I will now yield the floor for the Chair to put the question on 
this. I urge all my colleagues to agree to this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, I say to the majority 
leader I thank him for the conversation we had over the last several 
days about a matter of concern to me and I hope to the Senate.
  My objection to your unanimous consent request is not based on the 
belief we should be doing less business but in the hope we will be able 
to do a little more--specifically, that the two judges who are pending 
on the Executive Calendar since November of last year from the State of 
Illinois, judges I referred to earlier as coming from districts with 
extraordinary problems because of these vacancies, I hope these judges 
can be considered, and considered very soon.
  I have tried to say to all of my colleagues, Democrats and 
Republicans, that I stand ready to work with you to move this 
calendar's agenda as quickly as possible. I hope they will empathize 
with the challenge that faces us in the Southern and Central Districts 
of Illinois and that we can call these judges for consideration as 
quickly as possible.
  For that reason, for that reason alone, I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. I do want to say to the Senator from Illinois, I am very 
much aware of these two judicial nominations. As I promised I would do 
yesterday, I did talk to Senators from our side of the aisle that have 
some objections. It goes back to last year. The Senator knows all the 
details. I appreciate the fact that he did not object to judges that 
the administration sent here from Texas earlier this week, and I hope 
that we can continue to work to see if some agreement can be worked out 
as to how and when they might be considered.
  And I know that the Senator, perhaps, has some objection to us 
proceeding with the ocean shipping legislation; we have worked out an 
agreement on how to proceed on that. This is a bill we have been 
working on for a couple of years, in a bipartisan way, again. Senator 
Breaux from Louisiana has been involved; Senator Slade Gorton of 
Washington, who has some objections and has an amendment on it; and 
also, of course, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is the chairman of 
the subcommittee.
  You have a bill that you have a hold on. Am I clear that you are 
objecting to proceeding with this agreement because of the hold on the 
two Illinois judges? Or are you objecting on behalf of the minority 
leader or the minority? I don't think you want to leave the impression 
that you are objecting to this bill because of a couple of judicial 
nominations that have not yet been moved. Is that accurate?
  Mr. DURBIN. If the majority leader will yield, I am asking that we 
schedule as quickly as possible the confirmation of these two judges. I 
am trying to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that they 
have been on the calendar since last November. There are extraordinary 
hardships back in the State of Illinois. I know of no other way, and I 
have tried every way, to avoid this objection. I do not speak for the 
minority leader but only as one Senator from the State of Illinois. And 
I do object.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I regret the objection. I think this 
agreement is immensely fair and provides for an orderly process, again, 
for this very important legislation.
  American people care about education in this country. When I go 
around this country and back to my own State, other than being worried 
about crime and being safe in their schools, having safety in their 
neighborhood, safety in the schools and education are right at the top. 
People are saying, Why is elementary and secondary education not 
working in America? We are spending more and more money, and the grades 
are going down. Why is higher education in America the best in the 
world and elementary and secondary ranks something like 19th in the 
world? They want better quality education, they want more choice in 
education, they want safer schools, and they want zero tolerance for 
drugs in schools.
  This is the first opportunity this year where we have a chance to 
really begin to move toward that by allowing people--parents, and 
grandparents, and people that want to provide for scholarships to 
deserving children--to give an opportunity to choose a different school 
or get a computer for an eighth grader or tutoring for a fourth grader. 
I know it will have bipartisan support. I have to admit that Senator 
Torricelli has been very helpful to the Senator from Georgia in moving 
this legislation forward.
  So as a result of the objection, then, I have no option but to go 
ahead and move toward the calling of the bill and then filing a cloture 
motion. I want the American people to know that the objection is to the 
motion to proceed, not even on the bill, to even proceed with this 
very, very important education legislation.
  I am not sure, really, that I understand why there is this objection. 
I do think it is unfortunate. But at this point we will start the 
process, and I will file the cloture motion at this time. I must also 
note, though, that it does tend to delay legislation. There are those 
that are going to say, Why doesn't the Congress do more? Well, this is 
exhibit A, because it has gotten to where in the Senate we have to file 
cloture to stop a filibuster on almost every bill.
  This month, we need to complete this education bill, take up the NATO 
enlargement legislation, take up a budget resolution so we can get it 
done before April 15--which is what the law requires, I might add--deal 
with the supplemental appropriations request for natural disasters in 
this country, the cost for our defense, and for Bosnia and Iraq, how do 
we deal with IMF; we have to have, under the law, a vote on the Mexican 
decertification issue, again with relation to drugs; and we want to get 
IRS reform done before we leave to go home for the Easter recess. Every 
time something happens that delays another day, it shoves all of this 
down the line.
  I must add, I am being asked by Senators like Moynihan of New York 
and

[[Page S1925]]

Smith of New Hampshire to delay the NATO enlargement until at least 
after the Easter recess or maybe even until June. Any time a Senator of 
either party makes that kind of request to the majority leader, you 
have to think about it, you have to take their request in 
consideration--have they had enough time? Will more time be helpful in 
the discourse? I personally think we should go forward with the debate. 
I will give the details why I think that later on, but this delay 
affects everything else down the line.

                          ____________________