[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 22, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1554-S1556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to H.R. 3081, the House minimum wage bill now at the desk, and 
that one amendment be agreed to, which is the text of the previously 
passed Domenici amendment No. 2547 now in the form of a substitute 
relative to the minimum wage, the bill then be advanced to third 
reading and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its 
amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  I further ask unanimous consent that with respect to the bankruptcy 
bill, the Secretary of the Senate be directed to instruct the enrolling 
clerk to strike the Domenici amendment language just described above, 
all other parameters of the previous agreement be in order, and the 
Chair be authorized to appoint conferees.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Objection is heard.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, objection was heard. If Senator Kennedy 
would like to be recognized, I am glad to yield to him.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the majority leader.
  Mr. President, I think Senator Daschle outlined what was a reasonable 
way of proceeding. I am under the impression that perhaps the majority 
leader has not had an opportunity to get into the kind of detail the 
Democratic leader talked about.
  Although I still need persuasion on the bankruptcy bill, I know what 
the will of the Senate is on that issue. On the issue of the minimum 
wage, there wouldn't have been a blue slip on just the increase on the 
minimum wage. The blue slip was on the approximately $73 billion in tax 
breaks that were added to the minimum wage.
  The point our leader was attempting to work out was consistent with 
what the majority leader has outlined, and that is that at least there 
would be a way in which the Senate would be able to address the minimum 
wage. Some colleagues may object to that process, but I would not.
  As I understood Senator Daschle's proposal and the majority leader, 
by

[[Page S1555]]

substituting the Domenici bill for the House bill, there are 3 years. 
That would go to conference. What he was asking for was not really any 
unusual procedure, just asking that we follow the Senate rules that 
would permit a motion to instruct the conferees that, instead of being 
3 years, it would be 2 years. Given the fact it has been 6 months since 
the Senate acted on the minimum wage and given the overwhelming support 
for 2 years, which was bipartisan in the House, there might be support 
for that. I believe there would be, if we had that opportunity to do 
so.
  I hope the leader will consider what Senator Daschle proposed because 
it addresses the concerns of the leader and does it in a way in which, 
at least for those who are the most concerned about the 11 million 
Americans who have not had a pay increase while we in the Senate have 
enjoyed a $4,600 pay increase in 1 year, they would have some degree of 
protection.
  Others have objected, and I join those and object with the hope that 
perhaps the leaders can get together and find value in what Senator 
Daschle offered as being a way to achieve the objectives of the 
majority leader and the Senate and still protect the interests of the 
minimum-wage workers in this country.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I may respond to that, I want to make 
sure we have an opportunity to consider those small business men and 
women who create the bulk of the entry-level jobs in America, to make 
sure they do not wind up having to go out of business or, even worse, 
they don't hire the entry-level people who do deserve a basic minimum 
wage.
  What I have been trying to do is to find the quickest and cleanest 
way, which is also not out of the ordinary, to separate these bills and 
go on to conference and get a result that would be the best way to help 
all concerned, both those who will be negatively impacted if we don't 
go forward with bankruptcy reform and those who are looking for a 
minimum wage increase, and those small business men and women who 
provide so many jobs in America.
  I understand if we don't do it this way, there is the further 
complicating factor that the bankruptcy bill will have to basically be 
started over again. We will have to have a new bill filed, and it will 
be subject to amendment. There will be a very large amount of time and 
difficulty in having to do that all over again. The procedure that was 
suggested, I believe, is amendable and debatable.
  We have had this debate. The question now is, Do we want to go on and 
go to conference based on the votes already taken in the Senate and in 
the House so that could get a result? That is why I asked consent to 
proceed in the way that I did. But we can talk about it further. I 
would like to, for instance, make sure I understand correctly what is 
being asked for with regard to the bankruptcy reform bill because I 
certainly hope that we would not have to completely rework that and 
have that subject to amendment. We spent 2 or 3 weeks on that bill. So 
what we are doing here, we are talking Washingtonese, in effect. We are 
talking about rules and procedures and how to do or not to do. I would 
like to find a way to move all three of these issues, actually, quickly 
to conference and see if we can get a result.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the interest of the majority 
leader in moving this legislation along. I recall how long it was that 
we had to wait even to go to conference because of amendments that were 
outstanding. If I recall, we had to wait months, really, to 
accommodate, in fact, in this case, the majority; they wanted to offer 
some specific amendments that they were not interested in voting on 
until we got back from the first session of the Congress. So this has 
been languishing for a long time in large measure because some on the 
majority side were not interested in expediting consideration of this 
legislation. We clamored for conference last year and were unsuccessful 
in getting the conferees appointed last year. Now the majority leader, 
understandably, is frustrated and concerned for the lack of progress. 
That is understandable. There should not be any question that the 
overwhelming majority of the Senate wants to move to finish this 
legislation as soon as possible. It is what we clamored for last year, 
and it is what we have been trying to get this year.
  I hope there will be some degree of cooperation and communication 
with regard to how we proceed. I look forward to talking more 
comprehensively about my suggestion. It seems to me that going to the 
conference with the bankruptcy bill, as he has proposed, would make 
sense. Going to the conference on minimum wage would make sense if we 
had the opportunity, once again, to express ourselves on it, since we 
haven't been able to do that independent of the bankruptcy debate. If 
we are going to have a separate minimum wage conference, there ought to 
be a separate consideration, at least on the motion to instruct 
conferees. We could agree that it would not be amendable, that it would 
be expedited and not delayed, but simply a vote would make a lot of 
sense, it seems to me. I am prepared to talk with the majority leader 
at greater length. We all recall how long it took to even get the bill 
completed, and that was in large measure because we weren't able to 
complete it as a result of concerns expressed by the majority.
  We have now completed it. We now want to move on to the second phase 
of it. I want to work with the majority leader to see that it happens.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will inquire of Senator Daschle. Do I 
understand correctly that there is some thinking that we would have to 
start over on the bankruptcy bill--or did that come as a surprise to 
the Democratic leader? I had not had a chance to discuss that point 
with him--and that it be subject to amendment and everything all over 
again? Has the Democratic leader had a chance to look into that aspect 
of what we are trying to do?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am not aware of any effort on the part 
of Senators on this side to renew debate and start all over. As I said, 
I am more than willing and prepared to go to conference and to support 
efforts parliamentarily to ensure we are successful in going to 
conference.
  I understand there are some strong feelings by a very distinct 
minority of the minority. It is their right, and certainly I respect 
their right to object. But there are other ways to deal with the issue, 
and I am prepared to find ways.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask the Senator to check into that and see if we can work 
through that point. I understand there are some Senators on that side 
of the aisle who do wish to go through that whole process again on 
bankruptcy. That would be an important part of working out this whole 
maze of procedural questions.
  Did Senator Wellstone wish to comment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wanted to make sure that I object. I 
don't know if we have to go through the whole thing. The majority 
leader said we are talking in Washingtonese. To be clear about it, I 
think the bill was harsh. It has a disproportionate impact on the 
poorest citizens, and it takes some off the hook----
  Mr. LOTT. The bankruptcy bill?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct. We object to it being separated out. 
We want to focus on this bill, and we want to have an opportunity to 
have further discussion and debate on the floor of the Senate. So I 
object on that basis.
  Mr. LOTT. Would Senator Feingold like to speak?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes, I want to say a couple of words. I join in the 
objection. I make no secret of the fact that I oppose each portion of 
the bill. It is very unbalanced, and there is far too much money behind 
the bill. I oppose the minimum wage portion because it involves 3 years 
rather than 2 years. I am especially concerned about the tax piece 
because it involves some $70 billion-plus that isn't paid for.
  The reason I am objecting is because of the way this was put 
together. It got a high number of the majority by combining these 
different elements. In effect, the pot was sweetened by adding on the 
minimum wage and the tax provisions. I think it is inappropriate at 
this point to sort of bait and switch this. You close up the bill by 
putting these things together, and when they come back, you can't do 
anything about it under this procedure; it flies

[[Page S1556]]

through. All we are asking, as Senators Kennedy and Wellstone have 
said, is that we have an opportunity to have the motions to instruct, 
and the minority leader's plan would provide that. That is the reason 
for my objection. I thank the Chair and the majority leader for the 
opportunity to comment.

                          ____________________