[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 67 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4496-S4499]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUESTS

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we had talked over the period of, I guess, 2 
or 3 weeks about trying to come to an agreement so we could go back to 
the very important bill, S. 2, the Education Opportunities Act of 2000. 
We still have pending on that bill, I believe, two amendments for 
debate, and I don't know if we have the time agreement for a final 
vote. We do not, but we have Senators Jeffords, Stevens, Domenici, and 
others--and maybe Senator Kennedy is on that amendment--plus a second 
Kennedy amendment. What we have been trying to do is agree to another 
grouping of amendments after that but preferably to go ahead and get 
agreement on a list of very important amendments on both sides of the 
aisle that are related to elementary and secondary education and have 
votes on those amendments and then come to a conclusion.
  I wanted to see if we could make any progress in that regard and, 
hopefully, we can get agreement on this. If not, we will keep working 
to see if we can find a way to reach an agreement.
  I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of 
S. 2, the Educational Opportunities Act of 2000, the Stevens amendment 
No. 3139 remain the pending amendment, and that the education-related 
amendments which follow be the only first-degree amendments in order to 
be offered; that they be subject to relevant second-degree amendments; 
that debate on all amendments, whether first or second degree, be 
limited to 1 hour equally divided; and following the conclusion of 
debate on or in relation to the first-degree amendments listed, the 
bill be read the third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on final 
passage.
  I also ask consent that when the Senate receives the House companion 
measure, it proceed immediately to its consideration; that all after 
the enacting clause be stricken, the text of the Senate bill be 
inserted, the bill advanced to third reading and passed; that the 
Senate then insist on its amendments, request a conference with the 
House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of 
the Senate, all without any intervening action or debate, and that S. 2 
be indefinitely postponed.
  The remaining first-degree amendments in order to be offered to S. 
2--and I note again these will be 1 hour each equally divided--are:
  An amendment by Senator Jeffords relating to high schools; an 
amendment by Senator Stevens involving physical education programs; an 
amendment by Senator Bingaman regarding accountability; an amendment by 
Senator Santorum which calls for full funding for IDEA; the Kennedy 
amendment regarding teacher quality; a Hutchison amendment regarding 
single-sex schools; an amendment by Senator Dodd involving 21st century 
schools; an amendment by Senator Gregg involving 21st century schools; 
an amendment by Senators Harkin and Bingaman concerning school 
construction grant programs; an amendment by Senator Voinovich 
regarding IDEA funding options; an amendment by Senator Wellstone 
regarding fairness and accuracy in testing; an amendment by Senator 
Grams involving alternative testing; an amendment by Senator Reed 
involving parental involvement; an amendment by Senator Kyl which would 
deal with parental opt-out for bilingual education; an amendment by 
Senator Mikulski involving community technology centers; an amendment 
by Senator Ashcroft involving IDEA discipline--an amendment, I might 
add, he has been trying to get in the order for several weeks now, and 
we have not been able to get it agreed to in the order, and I must say 
that at one point he could have insisted on it but was agreeable to 
setting it aside with the understanding he would get a shot at it later 
on--a relevant amendment by Senator Lott; a relevant amendment by 
Senator Daschle; a relevant managers' amendment by Senator Jeffords; 
and a relevant managers' amendment by Senator Kennedy.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me simply respond to the 
distinguished majority leader.
  As he knows, in past debates on ESEA, there have been an average of 
22 Republican amendments that have been considered, an average. In some 
cases, that number has exceeded 30 amendments. The average number of

[[Page S4497]]

amendments in total considered during the ESEA debate has been 37 
amendments.
  I have no objection at all to the amendment suggested by the 
distinguished majority leader.
  I note with interest that the school safety amendment offered by 
Senator Lautenberg was not on his list.
  I would ask that the Senate resume consideration of the ESEA bill, 
and following the two amendments previously ordered, the Senate 
consider the following first-degree amendments subject to relevant 
second-degree amendments, and they be considered in alternating fashion 
as the sponsors become available: Senator Santorum, Senator Bingaman, 
Senator Hutchison, Senator Dodd, Senator Gregg, Senator Harkin, Senator 
Voinovich, Senator Mikulski, Senator Stevens, Senator Wellstone, 
Senator Grams, Senator Reed, Senator Kyl, and Senator Lautenberg.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, are all those 
amendments on this list that I read, plus Senator Lautenberg? Is there 
an additional Wellstone amendment in that list?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I guess I would have to consult with the majority leader 
in greater detail to know whether each of these amendments is exactly 
referenced in his unanimous consent list. As I understand it, this is 
the list that our two sides have been building upon in reaching some 
agreement on proceeding to the next block of amendments. Obviously, 
there are other amendments we would want to consider. But this is a 
block of amendments for which there would be no opposition to 
addressing as the next block on this side.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, further reserving the right to object, would 
that list include the other language I had in my unanimous consent 
request that would take us to a conclusion? I believe I understood the 
minority leader was saying that it would not. Is that accurate?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The majority leader is correct. We will be in a 
position--and could be in a position in the not too distant future--to 
agree ultimately to a finite list of amendments. I was not aware that 
the distinguished leader would be interested in pursuing this this 
afternoon. This is the first I heard of it. But we would be prepared at 
some point certainly during the time these amendments are being 
considered to offer perhaps a final list that would bring us to closure 
on the bill. I would be happy to work with the majority leader over the 
recess in an effort to finalize that list, and proceed with that goal 
in mind.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would object to the request at this time. 
But I am encouraged that we could get together and work to try to find 
a way to develop a list that would complete this very important 
education bill and bring it to final passage.
  I think we should pursue this to see if we can develop the list. I 
don't know how long it would be.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the leader yield for a question?
  Mr. LOTT. I will in just a moment.
  It sounded as if we had around 20 amendments, and it sounded as if 
the minority leader added three or four that were not on our list. We 
are talking about as many as 24 amendments. We have taken up six. That 
would put us at 30. I don't think that is necessarily an excessive list 
on something that is this important.
  But the point is, if we could at least pursue some finite list that 
would get us to a conclusion, I would certainly like to do that.
  I would be glad to yield to Senator Kennedy.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I could ask the majority leader, since 
probably the first priority of American families--even beyond having 
small class sizes, well-trained teachers, modern schools and computers, 
digital divide, afterschool programs, and safety and security in the 
schools--is the reduced opportunity for children to be able to have 
access to guns prior to going to school, it is not going to make much 
difference if we have small class sizes and guns are in the school.
  I am asking the majority leader if he is unwilling to permit a vote 
on the Senate floor of the Lautenberg amendment, which is really 
directed towards safety and security in the schools, as part of the 
measure. I think this is enormously important because we want to see 
the conclusion of the debate on ESEA. But I think it is important for 
Members to know whether we are going to be denied an opportunity to 
deal with what is the most important concern of parents; that is, 
safety and security in schools.
  I am wondering what the position of the majority leader is on that 
issue.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I might respond, this is about elementary 
and secondary education. Obviously, there is a lot we need to do to be 
of assistance to administrators, teachers, parents, and children at the 
elementary and secondary education level. Certainly, the local and 
State officials need to do more. We need to improve the quality of our 
schools, they need to be child centered, and they need to be safe and 
drug free. But I think it is about elementary and secondary education, 
and amendments should be germane to this area.
  I think it is a far stretch to say that a Lautenberg amendment which 
has to do with gun shows relates to elementary and secondary education. 
I think we should be sensitive to that area. We should do what we can 
to provide safety for children, and to make sure children don't get 
guns, have access to them, or make use of them.

  But I also think one of the things we can do that I supported, and 
which is in the juvenile justice bill that we passed earlier, and was 
in the making for 3 years--that included assistance for schools and 
dealing with these safety problems--for instance, funds would be 
available for metal detectors. A lot of schools are now doing that. 
They have a greater need for assistance. That is why I wanted to get 
the juvenile justice bill through. While I still plan to urge the 
juvenile justice conference report be completed, and it be brought back 
to the Senate, that is the place where this issue or these issues 
should be dealt with.
  The direct answer to the Senator's question is it is not germane, and 
I think it would be a major problem with elementary and secondary 
education legislation. Certainly, I would object to it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If I could briefly follow up, in 1994, the Senator from 
Texas, Mr. Gramm, offered an amendment cosponsored by the Republican 
leader. There was no objection from that side of the aisle to that 
measure at that particular time. I don't know how the Senator voted at 
that time, or whether he indicated it was appropriate to bring it up at 
that time. But it was noted as the gun amendment. The Senate has 
addressed the gun issues. It was brought up by the Senator from Texas 
and was cosponsored by the majority leader at that time. I believe the 
Senator from Mississippi voted for it at that time.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, without knowing exactly which Gramm 
amendment the Senator is speaking of, the way he described it, I 
probably voted for it and was supportive of it. But one of the problems 
I have, as suggested earlier, is that I understand, for instance, it 
leaves out the Ashcroft amendment. He has been very cooperative, to use 
that famous word, in not insisting that he be included in the earlier 
groupings. He at one point actually could have, within his rights, 
actually forced us to vote on it, and he didn't do it.
  I would want to talk to both sides about including the Ashcroft 
amendment. It doesn't include the two managers' amendments, or the two 
leaders' amendments, which I think surely we would be willing to do. 
And it doesn't bring the bill to third reading. I think we need to talk 
about those issues, and I hope we can do that.
  Mr. President, if I could proceed, I had indicated earlier this year 
that we would go to the Defense authorization bill. I believe it was 
this week. For a variety of reasons, we weren't able to go to Defense 
authorization. Of course, the way we usually do these bills is we go to 
the Defense authorization and complete that, and then go to the Defense 
appropriations bill and complete both of them.
  Earlier there were objections to taking up the Agriculture 
appropriations bill. I might say now that I understand why it has not 
been completed by the House. We thought the House would act on 
Agriculture appropriations this week. They did not do that. We have in

[[Page S4498]]

the past quite often gone to appropriations bills in the Senate and 
took them up to the third reading but without actually completing them 
and waiting for the House to act.
  Senator Daschle has indicated there are some points within the 
Agriculture bill in the Senate with which they have problems, and they 
want to have, I guess, an option to remove provisions of the 
Agriculture appropriations bill using rule XVI.
  It is obviously very important. Even though we took the emergency 
agriculture portion, $7.1 billion, out of the Agriculture 
appropriations bill and put it in the crop insurance bill that just 
passed, it still has some disaster money in it and some emergency 
moneys, I believe, for North Carolina and other areas. I hope we can 
find a way to get an agreement to go to that bill or to the DOD 
appropriations bill.
  There we are. We have been unable to get an agreement to go to DOD 
authorization. We have not yet been able to work out something on 
Agriculture or Defense. However, hopefully during this recess we can 
look at the importance of these issues and see if we can get an 
agreement of how to proceed on one or two of these.
  I think we are close to getting agreement on the e-commerce digital 
signature bill and also very close on bankruptcy, and therefore perhaps 
those two could be combined along with the satellite loan bill. That 
may be available early in the week we come back. I hope it will be 
because I think there are only two or three points outstanding on the 
three of them.
  For now, I ask consent that the Senate turn to the DOD authorization 
bill, S. 2549, and only DOD-related amendments be in order during the 
pendency of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object. I simply again indicate my 
reason for objecting is not because I don't want to go to DOD 
authorization. I would love very much to work with our majority leader 
in attempting to proceed to that bill. I have no problem with calling 
it up and permitting the full Senate to work its will.
  Again, he has proposed that it be done with only relevant amendments. 
I remind the majority leader, Senator Hutchinson offered a forced 
abortions in China amendment to DOD authorization just 2 years ago, and 
there have been many Republican nonrelevant amendments offered.
  I assume I am protecting the rights of Members on both sides of the 
aisle in insisting we have the opportunity to offer amendments, and I 
will work with the majority leader to see that we can take up this bill 
and work through his concern about amendments.
  Until we can work that out, I object to moving to it.
  Mr. LOTT. We had talked, Mr. President, about seeing if we could come 
to an agreement on how to proceed to the Defense appropriations bill, 
realizing that the authorizers want to get their bill done because, 
among other things, it does authorize and make some changes in law. It 
is not just about spending. It does have some very important language 
in it with regard to health benefits for our military personnel and 
their families and retirees. So there is a need to get the 
authorization bill done, and we need to find a way to get it done.
  Another way to proceed would be to take up the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill. I know Senator Stevens talked to Senator Byrd and 
Senator Daschle about going ahead to that, even though the House has 
not acted, on the assumption that the House will act on that the week 
we return and we would probably be able to take up that House bill or 
it would be here before we complete it. However, it is hard to say now 
if that will be accomplished or not. We don't know that the House will 
have it done by Tuesday of next week or Wednesday of the week we come 
back.

  I ask consent that we go to the Defense appropriations bill which was 
reported out of the Appropriations Committee on May 18 by unanimous 
vote of all the members of the Appropriations Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object again for two reasons: First, 
the bill is not here; and, second, because we have not taken up the 
authorization bill and our colleagues have indicated that is a very 
important matter. We always attempt to deal with the authorization 
requirements prior to the time we deal with the appropriations 
requirements. This unanimous consent request does not allow for that.
  I ask the majority leader what is wrong with taking up the one 
appropriations bill that has been sent here by the House. I note that 
on May 22 the Transportation appropriations bill was received from the 
House. It is pending in the Senate.
  I won't ask unanimous consent, but I ask the majority leader whether 
his intention would be to take up the one House-passed bill that is 
here. Clearly, we would have no objections to doing that. It is 
important we make the most use of our time. Because the House-passed 
appropriations bill having to do with transportation is already here, I 
am curious as to why we have chosen not to take it up until now and why 
we wouldn't take it up just as soon as we come back.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I certainly agree. I think we should take it 
up as soon as we can. It has come over from the House, but it has not 
been reported, I don't believe, from the subcommittee or the full 
committee here.
  I asked the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Shelby, why that is 
the case--and, by the way, immediately urged him to do it as quickly as 
he can--and I understand it was because Senator Lautenberg of New 
Jersey had wanted another hearing at the subcommittee level before they 
marked it up, and that they were going to need, in the next few days, 
to get it done.
  Hopefully, they will report that bill out by Wednesday or Thursday of 
the week we return and we will be able to go to that; either if we got 
it Thursday, we could do it Thursday or Friday, or we could go do it 
the first thing next week. I am pushing the committee to act on it. I 
don't know what the outstanding issue is, but I understand they wanted 
to have one more committee hearing for some reason.
  Let me provide a little incentive to all sides to work together on 
the Defense appropriations bill. I will not now move to proceed to it, 
but I will move to proceed to that bill when we reconvene after the 
recess, and have a vote, if necessary, on proceeding to the Defense 
appropriations bill.
  But over the next 10 days, we have time to work between the 
authorizers and the appropriators and everybody who has a concern about 
that bill, and hopefully something can be worked out so we can proceed 
on the authorization bill, and then, of course, immediately go to the 
appropriations bill after that.
  If we cannot get something worked out over the recess period or agree 
on some sort of schedule, I will have no alternative at that point but 
to move to proceed to the DOD appropriations bill. I prefer to have 
something we have worked out between the authorizers and the 
appropriators and the Democratic leadership and the Republican 
leadership so we can make good use of our time.
  We do have 4 weeks in the month of June when we come back. We have a 
lot of work we need to do. We need to move at least half a dozen 
appropriations bills during the month of June. We need to take a look 
at the House-passed China trade status bill, see how much time we would 
need on the floor, and try to get some idea of what amendments might be 
offered.
  It would not be my intent to try to limit amendments on the China 
permanent trade status bill. I think we should say right from the 
beginning if we add any new material to it, any new amendments or 
language, it would have to go back to conference with the House and 
then vote again in the House and Senate. That may be OK, but I want to 
take a little time when we come back and see if we can work through the 
time that would be required, when would be the first time to take it 
up, and what amendments might be in the offing from both sides of the 
aisle. Our staffs will be working on that during the recess. Plus, we 
could have other issues.
  I mentioned the conference report and other bills that are pending, 
so we are going to have to have a full month in June. I also remind my 
colleagues that in July--I was looking at the calendar last night and 
was really a little

[[Page S4499]]

bit chagrined to realize we only will have 3 weeks between the Fourth 
of July recess and the conventions in August.
  I had really thought we would have four; if we could do five or six 
appropriations bills in that window. So we really are under pressure, 
with the 7 weeks we have in the summer, to move 11 appropriations 
bills. That is going to be a monumental task, and it is going to take 
work with each other on both sides of the aisle. I know that. We cannot 
move it without everybody giving it a shot. But it makes it awfully 
hard for us to be doing other issues, other than the China trade bill, 
which we hope to get worked in there at some point.
  With that, I think we have talked enough about schedule. I hope we 
can come to some agreements over the next 10 days as to exactly how we 
will proceed the first week we are back.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________