[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 106 (Monday, July 26, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9199-S9209]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         RESTORATION OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF RULE XVI--Continued

  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I express my appreciation for the statement 
of the Senator from Minnesota regarding the rule change in his usual 
deliberate style.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the resolution that 
will be before us for a vote at the end of the afternoon, S. Res. 160, 
to restore enforcement of rule XVI.
  Mr. President, I believe in the Senate as an institution. I think it 
is an important part of the workings of our democracy that the Senate 
carry out its duties and responsibilities in a way that it has done 
throughout the more than 200-year history of our Republic.
  In a sense, this is a difficult issue for me because I voted not to 
waive rule XVI, or, in effect, not to overrule the ruling of the Chair, 
at the time the ruling was made. That, of course, was a motion offered 
by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I thought, well, we 
really should not change the way we do business. But what has happened 
since that time is, increasingly, that the minority has been really 
frustrated by the lack of opportunity to come to the floor of the 
Senate to offer its positions, to have them considered and voted upon. 
Therefore, I am going to vote against this resolution when it comes to 
a vote this afternoon simply, among other things, to make a very strong 
statement of protest against the procedures that are now being followed 
in the Senate, which are effectively preventing us from considering 
important issues.
  Now, repeatedly, we have had a situation in which the majority 
leader, once a measure is offered, fills up the amendment tree by 
gaining first recognition, which is the majority leader's entitlement 
under our process, and then the minority has no opportunity to offer 
its proposals. I ask the minority whip and the assistant minority 
leader, isn't it the case that time and time again we have simply been 
blocked out from even putting an issue before the Senate? I am not 
complaining about being blocked out if we then go to a vote on it--
well, I would complain, but you decide these things by majority vote. 
We are even being precluded from offering amendments in order to have 
positions considered; is that not correct?
  Mr. REID. That is absolutely true. For example, on the issue of the 
lockbox, cloture has been filed three to five times. We have never 
uttered a single word in a debate about that issue. We have never had 
the opportunity to offer a single amendment. We agree with the lockbox 
concept, but does it have to be theirs? Can't we try to change it a 
little bit?
  Mr. SARBANES. As I understand it, the way that has been structured 
now, the minority is totally precluded from offering any alternative 
proposal or any different proposal because they have completely blocked 
us out from offering any amendments; isn't that correct?
  Mr. REID. That is absolutely true. I ask my friends, are they so 
afraid of discussing an issue, and are they so afraid they will lose a 
couple of Members and we will be right? Is that the problem? I don't 
know. Why won't they let us at least offer an amendment?

  Mr. SARBANES. It raises this question in a democracy: What happens 
when you can't pose issues and have them debated and voted upon?
  It seems to me an elementary way of proceeding. Traditionally, the 
Senate has always offered that opportunity, as a matter of fact. I have 
been in this body a long time and I can recall when, not too long ago, 
we were in the majority, and even earlier when that was the case, when 
the Senate was essentially run in a way that enabled Members to bring 
up proposals and have them considered and voted upon. It by no means 
guaranteed that your proposal was going to prevail; You might lose, and 
that was obvious. But that is part and parcel of the democratic 
process. But not to even be able to offer your amendments--and, of 
course, this resolution would, in effect, limit down the opportunities 
as well.
  Essentially, if you had a Senate that was operating in the 
traditional way, you could offer your proposals. That sort of 
limitation is one that we traditionally lived with. But this was lifted 
by the majority, and at the same time they did this, subsequently, they 
have increasingly developed other ways of blocking the minority out 
from simply laying their positions before the Senate for consideration. 
Is that not the case?
  Mr. REID. It is absolutely the case. The fact is that all we want is 
to be treated like the Senate. My friend from Maryland served in the 
House of Representatives, as I did. That is a huge body, 435 Members. 
They need specific rules--and they have always had them--to move 
legislation along. You can't have unlimited debate in that body. But 
the Senate was set up differently. We do not need, or should we have, a 
rule on every piece of legislation that comes through, as does the 
House of Representatives. Does the Senator agree?
  Mr. SARBANES. I agree completely with that. In fact, even in the 
House the procedure has gotten so rigid that there is significant 
complaint that they do not have an opportunity when important measures 
are before----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time of the minority has expired, with the 
exception of 15 minutes that was reserved.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, since nobody is on the floor, I ask 
unanimous consent that we be allowed to continue for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, in responding to the 
question asked, with his experience in the House and in the Senate, can 
he tell us how he believes the Senate should be treated differently 
than the House of Representatives.
  Mr. SARBANES. Well, the thing that struck me when I came to the 
Senate from the House was, in a sense, how much more wide open the 
Senate was in terms of considering proposals of the Members of the 
Senate. In the House, of course, you have title rules. You adopt a 
rule, and that limits the amendments that can be offered. We even had 
the so-called closed rule in which no amendment could be offered. You 
either had to vote up or down on the measure that was reported by the 
committee to the floor of the House. But usually you would get a rule 
that would perhaps give the minority an opportunity to offer a couple 
of amendments. One came to the Senate and discovered that both the 
majority and minority Members had much more of an opportunity to have 
amendments offered by the body and considered and voted upon.

  Of course, in order to control that procedure, we had a rule that you 
could

[[Page S9200]]

not legislate on an appropriations bill, which seemed to make good 
sense. Now, that was overturned a few years back when the majority 
wanted to have a certain measure considered and the Chair ruled that it 
constituted legislation on an appropriations bill; therefore, it was 
not in order. The majority--the other side of the aisle--then went 
forward and appealed the ruling of the Chair and they overruled the 
Chair. That established the precedent that you could offer legislation 
on an appropriations bill.
  Mr. REID. I ask permission to ask the Senator a question.
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield for a question.
  Mr. REID. I remember that very clearly because I was the Senator who 
raised the point of order. It was on an appropriations bill, a 
supplemental appropriations bill. The junior Senator from Texas offered 
an amendment on the Endangered Species Act that would do great harm to 
that act. I raised a point of order it was legislating on an 
appropriations bill. The Chair, without question, upheld my point of 
order. There was an appealing of the rule, as the Senator said, and a 
longstanding rule, with all the precedence, was turned on its head.
  Now it has been 4 years, and we have been working under this 
situation that was created by the majority. The minority didn't do 
that. But I say to my friend, the reason we in the minority are so 
concerned is because it is not only that rule they are going to 
overturn, the fact of the matter is that we don't have any 
opportunities to offer amendments, to debate substantive issues in this 
country, based upon the gag rule placed on all legislation brought 
here; isn't that true?
  Mr. SARBANES. The Senator is absolutely correct. What has happened is 
longstanding precedent was overturned. Therefore, you could legislate 
on an appropriations bill. That is the precedent we have been working 
under for the last 3 or 4 years. On occasion, the minority--our side--
has offered legislation on an appropriations bill. Now the majority 
wants to go back to the old ruling. Having overturned the old ruling 
themselves, they now want to return to it.
  Well, as an institutionalist, you know the old rule made some sense. 
But what has happened to the Senate in the interim, in the meantime, 
since the overturning of this old rule, is that other techniques have 
also been developed to block the minority from offering amendments on 
the various matters that come before the Senate. So, in effect, they 
are closing out the minority from having any voice, any opportunity to 
present our positions, any opportunity to have a judgment made on our 
positions.
  I am very frank to tell you that is not the way the Senate ought to 
work.
  Previously, even when we had the old rule, we didn't have a couple 
with these other techniques that are now being used in order to keep 
the minority from bringing their position before this body. Until we 
can remedy that situation and get some assurance that we are going to 
have an opportunity to really present our amendments in an orderly and 
reasonable fashion, I am not going to support any measure that could 
have the possibility of closing out some opportunity that we now have 
in order to present our positions.
  Mr. REID. May I ask my friend another question?
  Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.
  Mr. REID. Is the Senator aware that the minority leader is going to 
offer an amendment to S. Res. 160 which will reinstate the scope of the 
conference report rule? That is when you go to conference and the 
conference committee must stay within the scope of the two bills on 
which they are working. It will be interesting to me to see if the 
majority will vote to support the overturning of rule XVI, which we 
know they will do, to see if they are logically consistent by going 
ahead and voting to also reinstate rule XXVIII. Also, this precedent 
was overturned in 1996 on the reauthorization bill.
  Does the Senator think it would be consistent for them to vote to 
make rule XVI the way it used to be and rule XXVIII the way it used to 
be? How can you vote for one and not the other?
  Mr. SARBANES. Absolutely. In fact, the rule XXVIII issue is also very 
important. That was also overturned by the majority to permit matters 
to be included in a conference report that were not within either of 
the two bills that the House and the Senate sent to the conference. Of 
course, what that means is that a conference can come back with 
something that is outside of the scope of the conference and present it 
to these bodies--a matter that neither the House nor the Senate 
considered in the course of sending that legislation to conference.
  Talk about potential mischief. You could bring back in here, 
contained in a conference report with all of the sort of protections 
that a conference report has in terms of its consideration, and so 
forth, matters that were outside of what was sent to conference. The 
minority leader is trying to remedy that matter.
  I can't for the life of me see why someone who supports S. Res. 160 
would oppose the proposal of the minority leader. But I guess we will 
discover that when we come to a vote on the matter later this 
afternoon.
  It eventually comes back to the very basic question. That is, What 
are to be the rights of the minority in this body? One of the great 
strengths of the Senate traditionally has been that it has accorded to 
the minority a real opportunity to participate in the consideration of 
matters on the floor of the Senate. The minority has not traditionally 
been closed out of participating. In fact, some have argued that 
minorities traditionally have been given too much of an opportunity to 
participate. They argue that.
  But what has been happening in recent years is, the majority has been 
using its majority to overrule these precedents of the Senate, which 
effectively then allows the majority to do what it wants to do and 
completely leaves the minority outside of the process.

  That is, in a sense, the issue that is at stake. That is why there 
has been such a strong reaction to this proposal, because S. Res. 160 
comes in the context of these other matters that have been happening, 
all of which have moved in the same direction; namely, to preclude the 
minority from having a fair opportunity to present its positions to the 
Senate, to have them considered, and to have judgment rendered upon 
them. It is fundamentally changing the nature of the Senate.
  One of the great things about American democracy that any political 
commentator always points to is that, unlike many systems, it isn't run 
in such a tight, rigid, disciplined fashion that the minority can be 
excluded from any opportunity to be heard and to have its positions 
considered. Particularly the Senate has been the great bulwark of 
strength in that regard.
  Now we have a proposal to overturn the very precedent which the 
majority themselves established only a few years ago, and to do so at 
the very time that increasingly the majority is using other techniques 
to block the minority from presenting its position, including, of 
course, this technique of filling up the amendment tree so that no 
amendments can be offered.
  We really are moving very much in the direction of saying to the 
minority, in effect, well, you can come here and sit at your desks, but 
that is about all you can do around here; there is not much else you 
can do in terms of trying to constructively affect the legislative 
process.
  I am very frank to say that I think we must resist that development. 
I think it is significantly undercutting the nature of the Senate as an 
institution and the role it has played in the country's history. I 
think this is a very important debate. I think the matter that is 
coming before us has a great deal to do with saying how the institution 
ought to run.
  I must say that if the procedures were all fair and if we were given 
a fair opportunity to present our positions, there might be something 
that could be said for going back and treating what was done as a 
mistake, as some of us assert it was at the time. But in light of these 
subsequent developments, it seems to me that the minority has to really 
insist that no opportunity to offer its position should be denied to 
them. Therefore, that is the position I intend to take when this matter 
comes to a vote at the end of the day.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S9201]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
charged to the majority.
  The reason I say that is so the Presiding Officer, either in his 
capacity as Presiding Officer or as a Senator from Arkansas--we have 
been very diligent in the minority in using up all of our time. Both 
leaders have sought to have a time in the evening to complete our vote. 
If the time doesn't run off, the time is charged to the majority now. 
This could go on forever and we wouldn't vote until sometime late at 
night.
  I ask unanimous consent that be the case.
  If there is some objection from the majority leader, he can come 
right back and change that.
  That is my unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  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 (Mr. ALLARD). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I inquire how the time has been divided and what time is 
remaining on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has remaining 54\1/2\ minutes; 
the minority has used all of their allocated time. Fifteen minutes at 
the end has been allocated to Senator Daschle and there is an allotment 
of 15 minutes remaining for the majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, one further parliamentary inquiry. That 
means, then, during the quorum call all time is coming out of the 
majority side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, then I yield myself time out of this 54 
minutes, realizing I also would have an opportunity to use my 15 
minutes in closing. But there has been so much revisionist history 
espoused on the floor of the Senate today, I just did not want to let 1 
hour 15 minutes go by without maybe correcting some of the record or 
putting an accurate history back into the Congressional Record.
  A famous quote comes to my mind, from what I have heard here today. I 
fear ``[thou] doth protest too much.'' In other words, there is an 
awful lot of protesting by the Democrats that has been going on that 
makes anybody who is a dispassionate, disinterested watcher just 
looking in, inquire why are they protesting so much?
  I have to note the inconsistency that is involved, too. Basically 
what the minority is saying, the Democrats are saying: As a protest 
statement, we are going to vote against reinstating rule XVI but we 
want to turn right around and reinstate rule XXVIII.
  This is Senate gibberish, I know, but it is inconsistent because they 
are saying we want to continue to offer legislation on appropriations 
bills but we do not want anything coming back out of conference between 
the House and Senate that exceeds the scope of what was in the bill. I 
think there is an inconsistency there. I think we ought to take a close 
look at the scope of the conferences question. We have time to do that. 
We have committees, a Rules Committee, and we have a Governmental 
Affairs Committee that have been considering rules changes. I think 
there are a number of rules in the Senate that should be reviewed.
  I think budget rules should be reviewed. For instance, this very week 
on the reconciliation bill which would provide some tax relief, at the 
end of the 20 hours, if amendments are still pending, we still have 
this very poor procedure where we might have to have what is called a 
``vote-arama,'' of one vote after the other, one right behind the other 
every 2 minutes; I guess it would be 12 minutes between the votes--a 
very poor way to do legislative business. I think we ought to take a 
look at that and see if we cannot find a way to improve it. So there 
are a number of things we can do that I think will help the way the 
Senate does business.
  I would like to go back and remind Senators how this rule was 
changed, this rule XVI. Rule XVI was overturned by the Senate on March 
16, 1995, on the Department of Defense supplemental appropriations 
bill. Senator Hutchison of Texas appealed the ruling of the Chair, in 
that the Chair ruled her amendment regarding a restriction on 
appropriations funds to make a final determination with respect to the 
endangered species list was legislation on an appropriations bill. In 
other words, this involved the Endangered Species Act. The Chair ruled 
this was legislating on an appropriations bill and therefore was out of 
order.
  That ruling was appealed. Many Members on the Republican side of the 
aisle supported her appeal. As a result, the Parliamentarian can no 
longer entertain a point of order that extraneous language is 
legislation on an appropriations bill. Again, keep in mind that up 
until that point that point of order would have been upheld by the 
Chair. That ruling was overturned and therefore a new precedent was 
set.

  Interestingly, in that vote, No. 107, on March 16, 1995, 54 
Republicans voted to overturn the Chair, 44 Democrats voted to sustain 
the Chair's ruling.
  I am sure for the most part on both sides what was really being voted 
on was the substance of this endangered species list amendment. For 
instance, one interesting quote on that occasion came from our 
colleague, Senator Reid, who has been on the floor a good deal today. I 
think he summed up what was going on with regard to this particular 
amendment because I think probably, without putting words in his mouth, 
he was at least sympathetic to what Senator Hutchison was trying to do. 
But this is what Senator Reid said:

       But this is not the way to treat a very important matter. I 
     am very upset. I am going to do everything that I can to make 
     sure the President, if in fact this bill passes, will veto it 
     if we start conducting business in this way.

  Basically he had indicated, I believe, that while he had some 
understanding and sympathy on the issue, he thought this was no way to 
be doing business.
  As a result of the overturning of the Chair, the appropriations 
process has certainly lost some of its legitimacy and has been 
complicated by the number of amendments, and their variety--and I am 
going to cite some amendments that were offered. The appropriations 
process is a very important part of our constitutional duty to the 
Federal Government. Yet with each passing year since this vote in 1995, 
it gets more difficult to get our appropriations bills through because 
of all the legislating that occurs on the appropriations bills.
  Let me emphasize, while I thought that most of the comments from the 
Democratic side today were very partisan, I don't view this as 
partisan. It should not be. The discussions we have had across the 
aisle over the past 4 years have been that this was a mistake; we ought 
to work together to change it. But let me give a recent example. This 
past week on the State-Justice-Commerce appropriations bill, I do not 
know how many amendments showed up on that bill, probably a hundred or 
so. I know of at least one specific example. I will not cite the 
specific bill because that Senator would know what I was talking about 
and would not feel that it would be appropriate that I cite his 
particular bill, but it was a whole bill that had not been introduced, 
had not been referred to committee, had not been reviewed by the 
committee, and would significantly change the way a process works in 
the Federal Government. That was going to be offered to the 
appropriations bill. That Senator was on my side of the aisle.
  So I really question that that is the way Senators would want this 
body to work, where whole bills will be cut out of whole cloth and 
brought to the floor of the Senate in a Senator's hand and he or she 
will say: I want this bill added to the appropriations bill.
  That is no way to legislate. We should not be doing that. But that is 
the kind of thing that has been happening since we had this ruling and 
then the appeal of the ruling of the Chair in 1995 that set this new 
precedent.
  The Senator from California was here earlier today commenting on 
this. Yet when this vote took place, she said:


[[Page S9202]]


       I think to come to this floor of the U.S. Senate and to add 
     an amendment to the Defense emergency supplemental bill that 
     deals with a very important and sensitive environmental 
     issue is simply not the right way to legislate.

  Holy smoke, she is absolutely right. She said that on March 16, 1995. 
That was not what I thought I heard her saying today. Maybe I 
misinterpreted what was being said today. But that is the point. 
Senators will have an opportunity to offer amendments on other bills. 
The point is made quite often in this body, unlike the House--and 
nobody wants to make the Senate the House--any Senator can come to the 
floor on a bill involving, let's just say bankruptcy, and he or she can 
offer an amendment to deal with health care or can offer something to 
do with the Forest Service. We do not have these strict germaneness 
rules. We do take up legislative issues.
  But one of the reasons why the majority leader cannot bring more 
legislative bills to the floor is because, in many instances, it has 
taken so long to get through other issues such as juvenile justice or 
the Patients' Bill of Rights or other appropriations bills; therefore, 
making it very difficult to bring up other important legislative issues 
such as the Federal aviation reauthorization bill, the bankruptcy bill 
that I referred to, or the nuclear waste bill that has been reported 
out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It makes it more and 
more difficult for anything to be done other than appropriations and 
reconciliation. And the reconciliation procession is very important 
because it is the only way you can get a bill dealing with taxes, for 
instance, to the floor without it being threatened by a filibuster or 
all kinds of other Senate legislative maneuvers.
  This is one where you bring it up, you have a specified period of 
time, you have an amendment process, you go through those amendments, 
and then you have a vote. That process moves quite easily through here. 
Right now we are in a period where appropriations bills and 
reconciliation are about all we can get done.
  There are complaints about filling up the tree. I have not gone back 
and done the research, but this process of so-called ``filling up the 
tree'' again is Senate language that is used to describe that all the 
different opportunities to amend are filled with amendments. I didn't 
invent that procedure. Other Senators who have been majority leader 
certainly have used that. Senator Mitchell used it. Senator Byrd used 
it. That is a very legitimate tactic or process which can be used, one 
that should not be used all the time, and one that has been used 
relatively rarely, but it certainly is a legitimate thing the majority 
leader can do to focus debate and to get debate concluded in a 
reasonable period of time.
  Let me give some examples of the kinds of things that have been tying 
up the Senate since we have been without the ability to strike them 
down by using rule XVI. First of all, it seems to me if you look at 
history, probably there has been an increasing number of amendments 
which have been offered on these appropriations bills. It seems now it 
is quite often within the range of 80 to 100 or 120 amendments on just 
about anything that comes along. Every Senator dumps his out basket on 
the floor of the Senate with every amendment he or she has ever dreamed 
of and some of the things with which we have to deal on appropriations 
bills, where it clearly would have been legislating on an 
appropriations bill, dealing with grasshopper research, lettuce genetic 
breeding, peach tree short life, tomato wilting, the feasibility of 
using poultry litter as possible fuel. Other examples are: removing of 
computer games from Government computers, repainting of water towers, 
swimming pool construction, the study of green tree snakes. These may 
be legitimate agriculture issues, but with others, they certainly would 
be considered to be frivolous in nature in terms of being offered as 
amendments on appropriations bills.

  While we have those examples, the ones that are the most startling 
and striking to me are the ones where whole bills or major amendments 
are offered on the floor of the Senate to appropriations bills that 
clearly is legislating on an appropriations bill, that do not apply in 
any way in terms of substance, where the committees have not been 
allowed to act, where the committee chairman has not had any input. It 
is time we bring this process under control. On more than one occasion, 
the exchanges between the Democratic leader and the majority leader 
have indicated that there has been a willingness or a desire on both 
sides to begin bringing this under control.
  I urge my colleagues to look at how this happened. A lot of people on 
both sides of the aisle at the time it happened did not realize the 
significance of it and, secondly, said at the time: Yes, this is 
probably a mistake.
  It has been a tool the Democrats have used over the past 4 years, and 
that is the way it works in the Senate. When you have a precedent, then 
Senators have a right to take advantage of it until a new one is set or 
until the Senate decides it is going in some other direction. There is 
nothing unusual about that at all.
  We should reinstate this rule XVI. We should look at a number of 
rules and budget procedures we have. We have appropriators who have 
come to me and expressed concern about this. People with a long history 
of paying attention to the rules of the Senate and the budget 
procedures and the appropriations bills, such as Senator Domenici and 
Senator Stevens and others, have said we need to get this back on 
track, we need to change the way we are doing business.
  I hope we can get through the appropriations process this year as 
soon as possible, so we can do some of these other bills that are very 
important to our country, so Senators will have an opportunity to fully 
debate and discuss these issues and offer amendments to issues that are 
outside the appropriations process.
  I hope we will have time to work with serious leaders in the Senate 
who are worried about the budget process, who are worried about the 
rules, and have some debate on the floor and make some changes. There 
is no desire at all to set up a Rules Committee in the House of 
Representatives sense, but there is a desire by this majority leader, 
as by every majority leader, to find a way to move the process and the 
legislation through the Senate.
  We did a marvelous job last week, if you look at it. It did not look 
pretty at various times, but last week we did pass reorganization of 
the Department of Energy. After probably a month of resisting doing the 
fundamental reorganization we need at the Department of Energy to stop 
the leaks of our very important nuclear secrets to China or anybody 
else, we finally got it to a vote last Tuesday, and the vote was, I 
think, 96-1--overwhelmingly bipartisan.
  One might ask: Why did it take you so long? That is the way the 
Senate works sometimes. We have to think about it; we have to have 
debate; we work out some amendments. Also, it might be that nobody 
wanted to be on record as being against reorganization of the 
Department of Energy. Again, it was dragged out, and we had problems 
getting to the intelligence authorization bill. We even had to have a 
cloture vote to get to the intelligence authorization bill, the bill 
that provides for the intelligence information for our Federal 
Government, for the CIA.

  I did not want to have to file a cloture motion on that, but I was 
told, in effect, that the Democrats were going to filibuster the motion 
to proceed. That meant the Democrats were going to filibuster even 
taking up the bill because they were not ready to debate the 
reorganization of the Department of Energy, I guess. I did not quite 
understand it. In order to get to a very important, very sensitive 
issue such as the intelligence authorization, the intelligence 
community of our Federal Government, which is such an important part of 
the defense of this country, the majority leader of the Senate had to 
file a cloture motion to even take up the bill for its consideration. 
If a change of heart had not happened, I would have had to file a 
second cloture motion to get to the substance of the bill.
  The pontificating we do sometimes around here, the posturing about, 
oh, we are cut off--what is a leader supposed to do when told the 
motion to proceed to a bill is going to be filibustered? At that point, 
I have to take action to move a bill, such as the intelligence 
authorization, forward. When the smoke cleared, it passed. We got that 
bill done.

[[Page S9203]]

  We got to the State-Justice-Commerce appropriations bill, a bill that 
quite often takes days, sometimes weeks, sometimes longer than weeks, 
with lots of amendments offered. As a matter of fact, with the 
cooperation of both sides of the aisle, on Thursday night at 
approximately 9:45 that legislation was passed.
  Today I went over and shook the hand of Senator Reid of Nevada and 
said: It would not have happened without your aggressive work in 
clearing amendments that could be accepted, in getting amendments 
withdrawn that really did not need to be offered.
  We did it on both sides of the aisle. I went to Republicans and said: 
You do not want to do this here. And Senator Daschle did the same thing 
on the Democratic side of the aisle. That is how one works through the 
appropriations bills because many of these amendments had no business 
being offered at that hour on that bill and on those subjects with no 
consideration being given by the committees or by the chairmen.
  If we can reinstate rule XVI today, we will see our appropriations 
bills able to go through without as much dilatory action or without as 
many amendments that really are strictly legislation on appropriations 
bills. I do believe that on both sides of the aisle Members know this 
precedent needs to be put back in place.
  Will it cure all the problems? No. As a matter of fact, Senators may 
just use other dilatory tactics, and if they can find a way to do that 
or if they can appeal the ruling of the Chair, maybe the precedent will 
be reversed again. That will be the will of the body. I will have no 
great concern about that. Then we can move on from this to the next 
step.
  Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd have proposed amendments that will 
go beyond what reinstating this particular rule XVI will do. I hope we 
would take a look at that before this year is out.

  So I may have to come back later on to respond in wrapup on some of 
these issues. But I do, again, refer you to the Shakespeare quote from 
Hamlet: I do think you ``protest too much'' as we work to reinstate a 
precedent that we all know will serve the institution quite well.
  Mr. REID. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield. You have no time; you have used it all 
today. We understand you had a lot of speakers. I would like to reserve 
as much of our time as possible for other Senators who wish to come to 
the floor to speak on this subject on our side.
  Having said that, I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. REID. Thank you.
  I say to my friend, for whom I have the utmost respect, I know how 
hard you work trying to move things along. I have tried to be as much 
help as I can be. But from the most junior Member of the Senate, 
Senator Bayh, to the most senior Member on this side, Senator Byrd, 
there has been a general belief today that we need to do more 
legislating, with fewer quorum calls; some more debate needs to take 
place. So I hope my friend understands the belief of the membership of 
the minority that we need to do more legislating.
  I also say to my friend that I have asked--in colloquies here with 
Members from the majority who came to speak today--how is it logically 
consistent that you can vote to change rule XVI and not vote to change 
rule XXVIII? And they all three said--I only asked three the question--
it is not logical to do that.
  I hope that the majority would take a very close look at rule XXVIII 
to see to it that we do not wind up with a situation like we wound up 
in last fall, with a 1,500-page bill that just a few people developed.

  So I hope, I repeat, that the Senator will listen to the spirit of 
the debate today. It was not acrimonious. I think it was constructive 
criticism. We all love the Senate. You are the leader. We recognize 
that. But we need to move along and do more legislating as the Senate, 
we think, should be legislating.
  I thank you very much for yielding.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, having been majority leader in the 95th and 
the 96th and again in the 100th Congress, I want to assure the 
distinguished majority leader that I have experienced all of his 
troubles, all of his problems. And this business of having to deal with 
a filibuster on a motion to proceed is nothing new around here. That 
has been the case for decades. So the distinguished majority leader is 
not experiencing something that I did not experience or that other 
leaders did not experience.
  The motion to proceed to the civil rights bill of 1964 was debated 2 
weeks. That was just the motion to proceed. And the bill itself was 
before the Senate 77 days. It was actually debated 57 days, including 6 
Saturdays. All in all, including the time that it took to get up the 
motion to proceed, and the time to deal with the bill itself, and then 
including, I believe it was, 9 days following cloture before the vote 
on passage occurred on the bill, it took 103 days--103 calendar days--
to deal with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  I was the only non-Southern Democrat--the only non-Southern 
Democrat--to vote against that bill. And I was against cloture on it. 
Other than Senator Hayden and Senator Bible, I was the only non-
Southern Democrat to vote against cloture. So I have been through all 
these travails and trials that the majority leader has experienced. And 
I empathize with him and sympathize with him, because I have been 
there, too. But it is nothing new to be confronted with a possible 
filibuster on a motion to proceed. I had to deal with that many times.
  Mr. LOTT. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. The distinguished Senator has the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Didn't the Senator occasionally file a cloture motion on a 
filibuster of a motion to proceed?
  Mr. BYRD. I did.
  Mr. LOTT. That is what I have had to do on occasion, too. And 
sometimes the majority leader might decide not to do that, to go ahead.
  Mr. BYRD. This leader did so on occasion. But this leader did not do 
it all the time, nor did this leader fill the tree all the time. I 
filled the tree a few times, very few times, but not all the time.
  I do not call up many amendments here. I am not one of those whom the 
distinguished majority leader has in mind when he talks about Senators 
calling up many amendments.
  Mr. LOTT. That is right.
  Mr. BYRD. I do not do that often. But Senators do have the right to 
offer amendments. The distinguished majority leader has his problems. I 
know them. I know them well. I sympathize with him and want to work 
with him and want to help him.
  I call attention to the fact that there are 63 Senators in this body 
who never served in this body when I was majority leader--63. I said 
this morning that more than a third, but it was actually almost two-
thirds of the Members of this body were not here when I was majority 
leader.
  I was glad to hear the Senator quote Shakespeare. Let me quote from 
Shakespeare also:

     'Tis in my memory lock'd
     And you yourself shall keep the key of it.

  So, Mr. President, I certainly will always want to cooperate with the 
distinguished leader when I can. I have to say I think there is too 
much partisanship in this Senate, on both sides, far more partisanship 
in the Senate than there was when I came here. I would urge again that 
the distinguished Majority Leader let Democrats call up amendments and 
that he call up legislative bills, and thereby give Senators a chance 
to call up their amendments so that they will not have to resort to 
offering them on appropriations bills.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, could I respond to some of the comments 
Senator Byrd has made?

  Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.
  Mr. LOTT. Because there are several points you have made to which I 
would like to respond.
  Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.
  Mr. LOTT. We have other Senators who may want to speak, but I did not 
want to interrupt if you were about to make a point. But I do want to 
comment on some of those issues that you mentioned.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the Senator will proceed.
  Mr. LOTT. First of all, with regard to the partisanship, as a matter 
of fact, I

[[Page S9204]]

think I would have to disagree with the Senator from West Virginia. I 
have not been in the Senate nearly as long as he has, but I have been 
working with Congress for 30 years--30 years. I am 57. I came here when 
I was 26. I was a staff member for 4 years; 16 years in the House. I 
saw partisanship at its worst in the House when I was a Member and part 
of an oppressed minority in the House.
  I have been in the Senate for going on 11 years. I really do not feel 
that much partisanship. I feel a real warmth toward a number of 
Democrats. And I thought it was just this year, just a short time ago, 
that we came through a historic impeachment trial in which we stood in 
these aisles--this center aisle here--together and said, this was a 
tough task; it was a constitutional requirement we had a duty to do. We 
performed our duty, and whether you agreed with the end result or not, 
most folks felt it was done fairly and not with shrill partisanship.
  Even when we disagree on substantive issues, I think the Senate is 
almost the only place in this city where it does not get to be shrill 
partisanship. I see the distinguished ranking member from New York of 
the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee is probably the most 
bipartisan, nonpartisan committee in the entire Congress. We do not 
always come out with a bipartisan bill, but usually we report a bill 
that has votes from both sides of the aisle. That was the case just 
last week on the tax bill; a couple Democrats voted with the 
Republicans.
  I don't believe that is partisanship, No. 1. The reason I think it 
doesn't get that shrill is because we are sensitive to each other's 
needs to be heard, to our individual needs. We have tried to be a 
Senate that understands that Senators have families, and I think just 
that relationship helps because Members are not exhausted and mad at 
each other. I want to continue to further that.
  In terms of giving the Democrats a chance, while there has been a lot 
of hollering about it, the fact is, you have been getting a pretty good 
chance. As a matter of fact, on the juvenile justice bill, I could have 
gone through all kinds of contortions and gyrations to try to block 
that, but I thought it was a bill that came out of the Judiciary 
Committee on a bipartisan basis after 3 years of work, and we ought to 
take it up.
  Did I like the way it went on a week more than I had been told it 
would take to get it done? No. As the Senator from West Virginia said, 
the Senate had to work its will, and there were more amendments cooking 
out there. I didn't run around out here trying to block them. Some of 
my colleagues said I should have done that. We worked our will.
  We wrangled around on the Patients' Bill of Rights for almost a year. 
We could have done that bill last fall, but we couldn't come to 
agreement. We came to agreement. We took the bill up. We got it done.
  Now, there were some speeches made the day before we completed that 
bill about how terrible the process was, but the night we got it done, 
Senators on both sides stood up and said: Well, I don't like all this 
and it wasn't perfect, but basically we got our fair shot, and we got 
our work done.
  As far as giving people the chance, I have a list, two pages of bills 
that have been done this year that are not appropriations bills. We did 
the first concurrent budget resolution on time, only the second time in 
25 years. We provided small business loan guarantees to small 
businesses that have year 2000 problems. We passed a national missile 
defense bill, which the President signed just the other day. And by the 
way, in his statement with his signing it, he misstated what the bill 
did. We passed a soldiers' and sailors' pay raise bill. We passed 
education flexibility. We had some Democrats who worked on that all the 
way. The President was saying all the way: I will veto it; I will veto 
it. Finally we got it done and he signed it. We passed the water 
resources bill. This is an area where we haven't passed an 
authorization bill, I think, in 5 years. We have passed it. The House 
has passed it, and after a lot of work, we actually got it into 
conference. Juvenile justice, we passed that through. The majority 
leader is trying to get to conference on that. We are going to have to 
have a bipartisan effort to get to conference.
  Defense authorization; energy bill package; financial modernization, 
a bill that has been coming for 10 years-- people didn't think the 
Senate would have any chance to pass a financial modernization bill. We 
got it through the Senate. Hopefully, we will get it through. The list 
goes on in terms of Senators being able to have amendments on 
authorizations bills and getting important authorization bills through.
  While the majority leader has to sometimes say we ought to be doing 
more, the fact of the matter is, we have been doing pretty good this 
year. I invite my colleagues and the public to take a look at this two-
page list of bills. As a matter of fact, we have already passed eight 
appropriations bills. We are probably a week or maybe a bill or two 
behind where we ought to be on appropriations, but in recent history, 
that is pretty good progress. I would like to keep that going.
  In terms of filling up the tree, again, I didn't invent this idea. In 
fact, I think I first saw it when Senator Mitchell used it. But Senator 
Dole used it on the 1985 budget resolution. Senator Byrd used it in 
1977 on the energy deregulation bill. In fact, to study the brilliant 
use of the rules of the Senate, I have gone back and read and reread 
that particular bill and how Senator Byrd handled it. Of course, as I 
recall, I think Senator Baker was probably working with you on that 
issue, but I know it was tough. You had to have vote after vote after 
vote after vote to break basically an amendment filibuster.
  Mr. BYRD. Which bill was that?
  Mr. LOTT. The energy deregulation bill, of 1977, during the Carter 
years. As I recall Senator Metzenbaum and others were resisting in 
every way possible. Senator Byrd filled up the tree on the Grove City 
bill in 1984, and the campaign finance bill in 1988, Senator Byrd 
filled up the tree there--there were eight cloture votes on that 
particular bill--and then on the emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill in 1993.
  Sometimes I thought it was a brilliant move. Sometimes I thought it 
was the right thing; sometimes I didn't.
  But the Senator is right, the majority leader has a job to do. 
Sometimes it is not easy. Sometimes it is quite difficult. But I think 
it is important that he continues to try to encourage the Senate 
forward and do it in such a way that when he leaves at the close of 
business on Monday, the 26th, he will be able to come back the 27th and 
work with every Senator the next day.

  I wanted to respond on some of those comments.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. Surely.
  Mr. BYRD. The majority leader was not on the floor earlier when I 
said that as the majority leader, I resorted to filling the tree a few 
times. So what the distinguished majority leader said doesn't reveal 
anything that is new and doesn't really reveal anything that I haven't 
myself already said today. I did that. I may have been the first one to 
fill up the tree in my service in the Senate--I am not sure--but I did 
do that on a few occasions, but only on a very few occasions. I didn't 
make it a practice.
  I also compliment the majority leader, and have done so on several 
occasions, for his judicious and very fair handling of the impeachment 
trial. I think the Senate did itself honor and did well by virtue of 
the fact that both leaders put the welfare of the Senate and the 
welfare of the country ahead of political party. I complimented the 
majority leader at that time, and I do again. He demonstrated real 
statesmanship on that occasion.
  Let me just say, again, what I said earlier this morning about 
political party. It is important to me, but I have never felt that 
political party is the most important thing. The Senate is more 
important than any political party. Many things are more important than 
political party. I have said that. But during my tenure as the majority 
leader, I always tried to protect the rights of the minority. Many 
times I made a point of it. I tried to protect the rights of the 
minority because that is a great part of what this forum is all about, 
protection of minority rights.
  I can also say that Senator Stevens and I did work together to come 
up

[[Page S9205]]

with some proposals that would have improved our situation, I think. We 
came up with a resolution containing several rules changes, with the 
understanding of the distinguished majority leader and with his full 
knowledge. I wanted it to be called up and debated and acted upon, but 
it is still in the Rules Committee. Nothing has ever been done about 
it.
  Our concern, going back to rule XVI, is this: Under the earlier 
operation of Rule XVI, a point of order could be made against 
legislation on an appropriations bill. If the question of germaneness 
was raised, the matter was submitted to the Senate for an immediate 
vote. The Senate voted on it. If the Senate decided on that vote that 
the House had already opened the door to legislation on an 
appropriations bill, the Senate certainly had a right to respond by 
further amendment.
  The problem now is, we are calling up appropriations bills that come 
out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. They are Senate 
appropriations bills. No point of order can be made that they 
constitute legislation on appropriations bills. There is no question of 
germaneness. If we go back to rule XVI, unless we take up the House 
appropriations bills, we cannot make the point of germaneness against a 
Senate appropriations bill. That is our problem.
  Senators right now, myself included, who voted to uphold the Chair on 
that occasion and stay with rule XVI, are concerned about going back to 
it now because we are normally acting on Senate appropriations bills, 
not House Appropriations bills. I have to applaud Senator Stevens. He 
is one of the best Appropriations Committee chairmen I have served 
with, and he seeks to take advantage of the time and get something 
done. We have Senate hearings and we mark up regular appropriations 
bills and then we act on them on the floor. When the House bill comes 
over to the Senate we substitute the text of the Senate bill in lieu of 
the House bill. That is all well and good. It saves time. But it does 
away with the opportunity to raise the question of germaneness. The 
question of germaneness cannot be raised unless we bring the House 
Appropriations bill up and the House has previously opened the door to 
legislation. I hate to vote against going back to rule XVI; I would 
like to go back to it.

  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield, I had the impression earlier 
that Senator Stevens wanted to reinstate rule XVI, and I actually had 
the impression that the Senator from West Virginia also wanted to.
  Mr. BYRD. I did. But as I explained this morning, it is the only way 
Senators, in many instances--the majority leader has mentioned the 
juvenile justice bill and he has mentioned----
  Mr. LOTT. The Patients' Bill of Rights.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, the Patients' Bill of Rights. Those are bills that he 
allowed the Senate to work its will on. The product that came out at 
the end was a product of the will of the Senate.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could, if the Senator will allow----
  Mr. BYRD. If I might finish my sentence, the majority leader has the 
floor, but I hope he lets me respond to the point he is making. We 
majority leaders like to finish our points, you know.
  Mr. LOTT. I get awfully excited when a point is made that I feel like 
I need to respond to. I will withhold until the Senator finishes his 
statement.
  Mr. BYRD. I have always been a majority leader willing to hear the 
other man respond. He mentioned two or three bills, and those are good 
examples of the work the Senate can do when it is given the opportunity 
to offer amendments and take time on the bill. I hope that we do more 
of that.
  My reason for voting, as I will later today, against going back to 
that rule is two or threefold. One is, the majority who had the votes 
then overturned the rule. The majority, which has the votes now, will 
reinstitute it. In the future, I am wondering if the situation will 
arise when it will be to the majority's benefit again and it will use 
its vote to overturn the rule again. But the reason I will vote against 
it today is because Senators on this side, according to my 
observations--and I don't make much of a big to-do often here--but 
Senators on this side of the aisle are simply not given the right to 
act on legislative bills much of the time, so they have no other resort 
but the appropriations bills. Therefore, I think I have to vote against 
reinstituting the rule.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I might respond to that, I think what is 
involved here is Democrats want to dictate the schedule around here. 
The Democrats want to dictate what the schedule is. When you say yes, 
juvenile justice and the Patients' Bill of Rights are examples of the 
way it can be done around here, it is because those were bills on which 
there was pressure to bring them up, not in the order that had been 
planned. But is the Senator saying, for instance, that the Democrats 
didn't also support or were not involved in these other bills that 
actually had bipartisan support, such as the national missile defense, 
which Senator Inouye was a cosponsor of; the soldiers and sailors pay 
raise bill, which had bipartisan support; education flexibility, which 
had bipartisan support; water resources, which passed unanimously, and 
defense authorization? These are not bills that I bring up because they 
are bills Republicans want; these are bills that are in the interest of 
the country.
  Mr. BYRD. The majority leader is preeminently correct. He is talking 
about bills that can be brought up in which both sides have had an 
opportunity to give and take and offer amendments, so the country 
benefits.
  Mr. LOTT. The list is very long here. I don't quite understand what 
the complaint is.
  Mr. BYRD. If I wanted to point to a list, I could point to a list of 
bills on this calendar that is very long that haven't been taken up.
  Mr. LOTT. That is partially because of the amount of time that has 
been taken up with other bills that were not scheduled. Bankruptcy, for 
instance, has been bumped several times because it took longer. The 
will of the Senate was to take longer in the debate of other bills. 
There is the case of the nuclear waste legislation, which the Senate 
passed a couple years ago. Now the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee has come up with a bill that is very different. I think maybe 
it could have even broader support than the previous bill, which I 
think got about 63, 64, or 65 votes, or was going to have that many.
  So the point is, the majority has to try to bring up bills in which 
there is broad interest and that have support--things such as the State 
Department and Defense Department authorizations. My goodness, if we 
don't authorize the legislation for the Department of Defense, we can't 
get the appropriations bill, or it causes all kinds of problems. A lot 
of what I bring up is dictated by, frankly, what the Constitution 
requires, or what has to be done to keep the Government operating in an 
appropriate way.
  Here is a bill, the Workforce Incentives Improvement Act, which had 
problems when it came out of committee. They were worked on and this 
bill passed, I think, probably overwhelmingly, if not unanimously. It 
is one that was a high Democratic priority, but also had the support of 
the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member. The Y2K 
bill was a bill that had bipartisan support out of Judiciary and also 
out of a second committee, where you had Democrats involved in both 
instances. Yet it took us weeks to get that bill done. I think we had 
to go through three cloture votes to get that bill done, which the 
President signed into law.
  Mr. BYRD. But if it is an important bill, what is wrong with taking 3 
weeks?
  Mr. LOTT. Because if you take 3 weeks on a bill like Y2K liability 
limits, which should have gone through here relatively quickly, that 
makes it more difficult to call up other bills that Senators would also 
like to consider.
  I think maybe the Senator and I are involved in a discussion of 
scheduled events and rules which is important to us and important to 
the way the body works. I think the main thing we need to be saying to 
the American people is that we are going to work together to try to get 
our business done. By the way, the length of speech doesn't necessarily 
mean that the merit is all that great.
  In terms of bipartisanship, I think I have proven several times, 
including

[[Page S9206]]

working with the administration in 1996 and 1997 to get Medicare 
reform, tax cuts for working Americans, budget restraint, welfare 
reform, illegal immigration reform, health care portability--we have 
worked in a lot of areas in a bipartisan way across the aisle and 
across the Capitol and with the administration. I would like for us to 
continue doing that. I am one of the few Members--to show just how 
nonpartisan or bipartisan I am, I came to the city thinking I was a 
Democrat, but I was elected as a Republican. So I served on both sides 
of the aisle.

  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. I certainly don't want to appear to be trying to take 
anything away from the distinguished majority leader, who has 
accomplished many things. I compliment him, and I have done so many 
times. I have spoken behind his back as well as to his face that he has 
many attributes that I admire. But surely the distinguished majority 
leader didn't mean what he said when he said the Democrats were trying 
to dictate the scheduling. This Democrat doesn't do that, and the 
majority leader knows that. This Democrat has no such intention, and I 
don't think the Democrats here, who are in the minority, would attempt 
to try to dictate the schedule.
  The Democrats, as I observe them, are trying to stand up for their 
rights, and they certainly have the right to debate and the right to 
offer amendments. I have no interest in taking over the schedule here. 
But I do have an interest in the Senate. I think the Senate has gone 
downhill. I think it is too partisan, and I don't think the minority 
has been given the right to call up amendments. I have seen the 
distinguished majority leader call up a bill and immediately put a 
cloture motion on it. I have done that a few times, too, my friend, but 
I never made it a practice to do it day after day and time after time. 
You can search my record if you want to, but I also have a memory. I 
was majority leader here, as I say, before 63 of the current Senators, 
including the majority leader, got here. I am pretty well informed 
about what has gone on before.
  I am not here to attack the majority leader today. I admire him. I 
count him as my friend. As far as I am concerned, he will remain that 
way. But I think the Senate is being hurt. I don't want the Senate to 
be hurt. I think the American people want their work done.

  I had the same problem that the Senator is talking about. I called 
our Democratic Senators one day into my office, and I said: Now, I'll 
tell you what I am going to do. We are going to have a week's or ten-
day break every 4 weeks here. We are going to go home and talk to our 
people.
  I got a big hand of applause.
  Then I said: Now, the other side of that coin is, we are going to be 
here 5 days a week, and we are going to work 5 days a week. And we are 
going to have votes 5 days a week, on Mondays as well as on Fridays.
  I first offered the carrot, and then I offered the stick, and it 
worked.
  I am the one--I am the culprit--who started this business of having 
breaks every 4 or 5 weeks. But I also kept the Senate here. Not 
everybody on this side of the aisle liked me for it. As I said, it is 
not the quality of life around here that counts to me; as long as I am 
the majority leader, it is the quality of work that counts.
  I have been through all of that. We got the work done. Senators were 
able to call up their amendments. They were able to get votes on them. 
Look at the Record of the 100th Congress. You will see a good record.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, when the Senator was talking about the 
rights of the minority, I thought it was I speaking. I remembered my 
saying the same thing. In fact, I was sitting right over there. I think 
there were only three desks there. I remember pleading with Senator 
Mitchell, who was standing right there, the majority leader. I believed 
I was being oppressed and that the minority rights were not being 
honored.
  I remember also sitting right over there pleading with the Senator 
from Texas, who was chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Bentsen, 
to offer an amendment. As I recall, it had something to do with 
university loans or scholarships. I remember being prohibited from 
offering that amendment.
  I know when you are in the minority you are not always happy with the 
way you are treated. But I think we need to work together to try to not 
have that be the all-consuming viewpoint around here, and I don't think 
it has.
  I remember how rough it was being in the minority. I was there for 21 
years. I didn't like it at all. I like the majority much better. But I 
think you have to try to be reasonable on both sides of the aisle. That 
is why I have been a little bit shocked today by the tone of the debate 
which I was watching. Although I was not participating in it, I thought 
I had to come out here and, in effect, explain what happened--explain 
what this really means, and a little bit to defend my honor.
  But I appreciate what the Senator has said. I know he has been 
helpful since I have been the majority leader. I am sure he will help 
us try to get our work done in the future as he has done in the past.
  If I could, let me ask unanimous consent.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator allow me once more?
  Mr. LOTT. I would, but I would point out that we only have a few 
minutes left. I need to hold a few minutes. I see Senator Chafee may 
want to speak.
  I will yield one more time.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator cannot quote one time today, or before today, 
in which I said anything that would or could be properly interpreted as 
impugning his honor. I would not do that. If he can cite one time, I 
will apologize for it right now.
  Mr. LOTT. I wouldn't, couldn't, and would never expect to even try.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Byrd.
  I ask unanimous consent that the votes in regard to the scope 
amendment and the vote on adoption of S. Res. 160 occur at 5:30 p.m. in 
stacked sequence with 2 minutes of debate between each vote and the 
final vote in the sequence being the cloture vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. I strongly support S. Res. 160, and urge 
my colleagues to vote for this important measure.
  If this resolution is approved, it will restore Rule XVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate--a rule which, in one form or another, has 
served the Senate well since 1850. By restoring Rule XVI, Senators will 
again have at their disposal a procedural tool--a point of order--which 
can be raised against legislative amendments to appropriations 
measures. Though this point of order can be waived by a simple 
majority, it nonetheless reinstates an important procedural safeguard 
to discourage this harmful practice of legislating on appropriations 
bills.
  Since 1995, when the Senate voted in effect to overturn Rule XVI, we 
have witnessed a proliferation of so-called ``legislative riders'' on 
appropriations bills. Regrettably, much of this activity has been aimed 
at undermining our environmental laws. However, no authorizing 
committee's turf is safe without firm dividing lines clearly to 
differentiate the functions performed by these two types of committees.
  Authorizing committees are responsible for developing and overseeing 
the laws and programs which fall within their respective jurisdictions. 
The Appropriations Committee is then tasked with establishing 
appropriate funding levels on an annual basis for each of these 
programs, based upon the availability of discretionary resources.
  Shortly, the Senate is scheduled to consider the Fiscal 2000 Interior 
and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill. Unfortunately, this measure is 
laden with legislative riders. By singling these provisions out, I do 
not mean to suggest that they are not deserving of our consideration. 
To the contrary, these provisions should be thoroughly examined--but 
not in the context of the appropriations process.
  The authorizing committees, which have the substantive expertise, are 
the proper fora within which to consider and evaluate these provisions. 
However, as most of us know, by attaching a rider to an appropriations 
bill, one

[[Page S9207]]

avoids having to defend it from the public scrutiny that comes with the 
authorizing committee process. Moreover, as part of must-pass annual 
funding bills, these often objectionable provisions are virtually 
assured of being signed into law, despite any misgivings a President 
might have.

  In addition to miring the appropriations process in controversy, the 
ability to attach legislative riders to annual spending bills also 
undermines the power of the authorizing committees to advance 
authorizing legislation. In fact, appropriations riders have, in some 
cases, made it difficult to reauthorize some government programs.
  Thus, Mr. President, the public interest is not well-served by the 
practice of including legislative provisions in appropriations bills. 
Unfortunately, reinstatement of Rule XVI will not fully address this 
problem because the point of order--this is important to note--only 
applies to legislative amendments which are offered on the floor, and 
not to legislative provisions added during committee action.
  In the days when the Senate Appropriations Committee took up and 
amended House-passed appropriations measures, all of the Committee's 
changes were considered amendments. Today, as a general matter, the 
Senate Appropriations Committee develops its own original bills. Thus, 
the Rule XVI point of order does not apply to legislation added during 
the committee process--rather only to legislative amendments that are 
offered on the floor.
  In other words, in a bill coming from the Appropriations Committee 
you can have, in effect, a legislative rider. That is there. As we are 
proposing it, as I understand it, the reinvigoration of rule XVI only 
applies to those legislative measures that are added on the floor.
  Thus, while S. Res. 160 is an important first step, it does not go 
far enough. In order to fully protect the interests of the authorizing 
committees, the Rule XVI point of order should be made applicable to 
legislative provisions which have been added to appropriations bills 
during committee action.
  For this reason, we should not only restore Rule XVI, but also 
strengthen it, as Senators Stevens and Byrd have proposed in S. Res. 8, 
which they introduced earlier this year. As the Chairman and Ranking 
Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, these Senators know 
better than most of us that legislative riders have hindered their 
ability to secure timely passage of the 13 annual spending bills. Their 
proposal would subject all legislation contained in appropriations 
measures--regardless of whether added on the floor or in committee--to 
the Rule XVI point of order.
  Thus, while I will vote for S. Res. 160, I will continue to press my 
colleagues to further strengthen Rule XVI by adopting S. Res. 8.
  I thank the Chair.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1343

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1343.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place add the following:
       The presiding officer of the Senate shall apply all 
     precedents of the Senate under Rule XXVIII in effect at the 
     conclusion of the 103rd Congress.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this amendment addresses what we consider 
to be one of the major procedural problems facing Senators today. It 
has to do with what is referred to here as the scope of conference.
  For those who may be watching this debate and are not totally 
familiar with parliamentary procedure, after a bill is passed in the 
House and passed in the Senate, the bill goes to conference. Here the 
House- and Senate-passed bills, two separate pieces of legislation, are 
melded into one in a way that hopefully will be acceptable to members 
from both Chambers of Congress. Only one bill can become law. The 
conference report represents an agreement between the House and the 
Senate as to what specific proposals ought to be included in a single 
piece of legislation.
  It has always been the case that when a bill comes to conference, if 
there is something in the House bill that is not in the Senate bill, or 
something in the Senate bill that is not in the House bill, a vote is 
taken and a decision made about the propriety of including that 
provision for the final version in the conference agreement.
  At no time, up until recent years, was there ever consideration given 
to a situation where if a provision did not appear in either the House 
or Senate versions, could it even be considered in the conference.
  However, a decision was made by the majority to allow original 
legislative provisions to be taken up in the conference, that is 
language that may not have even been debated in either body let alone 
received a recorded vote.
  As a result of this decision made by the majority, we can go into 
this conference--whose purpose it is to work out the differences 
between the House and the Senate--and completely bypass the relevant 
authorizing and appropriations committees. In a sense, this decision 
set up a ``super'' legislative committee that makes up its mind 
oftentimes without the benefit of House or Senate hearings, without the 
benefit of action in any House or Senate committee, and without a vote 
on either the House or Senate floor. It is an amazing set of 
circumstances.
  We have seen that happen over and over again. The most consequential 
incident occurred at the end of the last session when the White House 
and a relatively small group of Senate and House conferees made 
decisions that were not based on any actions taken in either body of 
Congress.
  The distinguished Presiding Officer, after it happened on October 20, 
addressed this issue as eloquently and as succinctly as any Member I 
have heard. If my colleagues haven't had the opportunity to hear what 
he said, I think this excerpt states it so well:

       I don't believe the Founding Fathers of this country ever 
     intended for a few Members and staff to make more than one 
     half of a trillion dollars worth of arbitrary, closed-door 
     decisions for the rest of us, for America--almost one-third 
     of the Federal budget--and then present them to all other 
     Senators and Representatives, men and women, elected by the 
     people of this country, by the taxpayers, and then say take 
     it or leave it, an up-or-down vote.


So said the Senator from Nebraska.
  The Senator from Utah said something similar and equally on point. 
Senator Hatch, on the same day on the Senate floor, said:

       We should all be concerned about the perception this 
     backward procedure--one in which we are considering 
     conference reports on bills that have not even passed the 
     Senate yet--will set a precedent for the future. Mr. 
     President, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
     will join me in a sweeping denunciation of this as anything 
     other than a one-time event.

  I wish this had been a one-time event. Unfortunately, it happens over 
and over and over. It is a complete emasculation of the process our 
Founding Fathers had set up. It has nothing to do with the legislative 
process.
  If you were going to write a book on how a bill becomes a law, you 
would need several volumes. In fact, if the consequences were not so 
profound, some could say you would need a comic book because it is 
almost hilarious to look at the lengths we have gone to thwart and 
undermine and, in an extraordinary way, destroy a process that has 
worked so well for 220 years.
  This amendment simply says let's get real. If we mean what we say, 
and if we truly want to end this amazing process, now is our chance. 
This is the opportunity. I am very hopeful our colleagues will support 
our effort to put democracy back into the legislative process, to 
ensure the committees, authorizing and appropriating, have an 
opportunity to express themselves and to ensure every single Senator on 
the

[[Page S9208]]

Senate floor has an opportunity to express himself or herself.
  As I noted earlier, the dictatorial, take-it-or-leave-it approach 
referred to by the two Republican Senators is, unfortunately, not a 
one-time event. It has happened over and over. If we are serious about 
making changes, I cannot think of anything that ought to change more 
quickly and with broader bipartisanship than this. We will have an 
opportunity.
  I appreciate very much the eloquence, leadership, and interest in 
making changes expressed by our colleagues over the course of many 
different occasions, occasions just as egregious as the one last 
October. On each of these occasions, Senators have been denied their 
basic rights as elected Representatives of the people of their State, 
and a mockery has been made of our legal and legislative process.
  This is a very critical amendment. We will have an opportunity to 
vote on it in 15 minutes. I hope we make the right decision. I hope it 
is a bipartisan decision. I hope we can do it in a way that will allow 
us the opportunity, once and for all, to put common sense and some 
semblance of order into our conference process and the conference 
reports that we are called to vote on after the process has been 
completed.
  Mr. President, I will speak just briefly about the underlying matter; 
that is rule XVI. I appreciate very much the effort made by the 
assistant Democratic leader. He has managed our time so exceptionally 
well. I am grateful to him once more for the extraordinary effort he 
has made in making sure colleagues have the opportunity to express 
themselves and to orchestrate our response to arguments made by our 
colleagues on the other side. I think the record clearly shows what the 
Democratic position was several years ago when our colleagues 
overturned the ruling of the Chair. We had said at the time that rule 
XVI was there for a reason. We believe rule XVI existed because there 
is an authorizing and an appropriating process. What has happened since 
that vote is interesting. What has happened is the Senate has become 
more like the House of Representatives than I believe it has, probably, 
ever been in our Nation's history.
  The House of Representatives has a very tight process by which 
amendments are considered. There has to be a Rules Committee. The Rules 
Committee decides, on each and every piece of legislation, how many 
amendments are offered. The majority dominates the Rules Committee, as 
we know, by a two-thirds to one-third ratio. When Democrats were in the 
majority, when I was in the House, I thought what an incredible power 
that is. For the Rules Committee, with its membership ratio tilted so 
heavily in favor of the majority, to decide means the majority gets its 
way virtually every single time. Only on rare occasions do a 
combination of minority and majority Members of the House join forces 
to thwart the will of the majority. That does not happen very often.

  The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, saw fit not to have a Rules 
Committee in the Senate in that same sense of the word. We do have a 
Rules Committee. It is very important and carries out some functions 
that are in large measure directly related to how this Senate operates. 
However the committee does not dictate how the Senate floor operates. 
There is no gatekeeper when it comes to legislation. The gatekeeper is 
all of us, 60 votes.
  Yet, what do we see now all too frequently? On virtually every single 
piece of legislation that comes to the Senate floor, the bill is filed, 
the so-called parliamentary tree is filled, and cloture votes are 
scheduled. Why would we be opposed to that? We are opposed to that 
because once there is no opportunity for us to offer amendments--
whether they are directly germane to the bill or not--we are precluded 
from being full partners as legislators. We are precluded from the 
opportunity to express ourselves, to make alterations, to offer 
suggestions, to have the kind of debate on public policy that I think 
our Founding Fathers understood.
  As a result of all of this, we have become increasingly concerned 
about what is happening to the Senate as an institution, as well as 
what it is doing to the Democratic Members who want very much to be a 
part of the legislative process as full-fledged Senators. So our vote 
is in large measure a protest of the extraordinary ways the legislative 
process has been altered now for the last several years; a process I do 
not believe our Founding Fathers ever anticipated; a process that is 
very much in keeping with the attitude and the mentality created by the 
Rules Committee in the House of Representatives. That is not what we 
were supposed to be.
  People who want those kinds of rules ought to run and get elected to 
the House of Representatives. They ought not want to serve in the 
Senate. The Senate is a different body. Who was it who said the Senate 
is a saucer within which emotions and the rage of the day cool. 
Legislation oftentimes can be passed directly through the House of 
Representatives. It is only after they have been deliberative and 
thoughtful and considerate of a lot of different issues, and a 
supermajority, sometimes on controversial issues, having been 
supported, do we ultimately allow a bill to be passed in the Senate.
  So this vote is about the institution. It is about protecting 
Senators' rights to be full-fledged Members of this body. It is about 
whether we, as Senators, want to be more like the House or more like 
what the Founding Fathers envisioned in the first place--full-fledged 
U.S. Senators with every expectation we can represent our people, we 
can represent our ideas and our agenda in whatever opportunity presents 
itself legislatively. Our Democratic and Republican colleagues 
certainly should support that notion.
  Our Republican colleagues used it many times to their advantage when 
they were in the minority. We simply want the same opportunity to do it 
now.
  My colleagues will be voting against this overturning of the ruling 
of the Chair in large measure because we still are not confident the 
majority is prepared to open up the legislative process as it was 
designed to be open up the process to allow amendments, open up and 
give us the opportunity to work with them to fashion legislation that 
will create a true consensus on whatever bill may be presented.

  We will have two votes at 5:30 p.m. The first will be the vote on 
whether or not legislation that has never been considered in the House 
or the Senate ought to be included in a conference report. Democrats 
say no; no, we should not allow that.
  The second vote will be about whether we permit Members of the Senate 
to offer legislation, whether it is on appropriations or authorization 
bills, without the encumbrance of a Rules Committee, a right that, by 
all description, was anticipated by the Founding Fathers.
  I hope we can adopt the amendment I have offered. I hope we will 
reject the overturning of the Chair on rule XVI. I hope we can work 
together to accomplish more in a bipartisan fashion in a way that will 
allow all Senators to be heard and to contribute.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I noted that Senator Daschle used a 
quotation from a statement I made last fall concerning the Omnibus 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1990 in his arguments for his 
amendment to S. Res. 160.
  I am flattered that he felt my words were of such import that he had 
them blown up to poster size and displayed them for all to see. I wish 
he would do that with all of my speeches.
  In this case, however, I just wish he had quoted the entire 
statement. Although I, like many of our colleagues, expressed genuine 
frustration with the unusual process that resulted in the Omnibus 
Appropriations bill, my statement also defends it as necessary to 
prevent a devastating government shutdown. I regret that Senator 
Daschle took this excerpt out of context. Those who read my entire 
statement will see that it provides a much different position than what 
the Minority Leader suggests by excerpting this small section.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.
  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 amendment No. 
1343. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.

[[Page S9209]]

  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 221 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     McCain
     Voinovich
       
  The amendment (No. 1343) was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
  There are two minutes equally divided.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, 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. REID. Mr. President, we yield our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded, the question is on 
agreeing to the resolution. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) 
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     McCain
     Voinovich
       
  The resolution (S. Res. 160) was agreed to, as follows:

                              S. Res. 160

       Resolved, That the presiding officer of the Senate should 
     apply all precedents of the Senate under rule 16, in effect 
     at the conclusion of the 103d Congress.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________