[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 74 (Wednesday, June 14, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5065-S5066]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ORDER OF BUSINESS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I apologize to my friend from North Dakota. 
I hope during the next hour and 15 minutes we can also make some 
progress toward getting rid of a number of the amendments, in addition 
to those cleared. I hope we can move in an orderly fashion to dispose 
of the Smith amendment, as amended. We can move forward and give 
Senator Dodd an opportunity to move forward with what he desires to do.
  In effect, I hope we can do more than just deal with cleared 
amendments. The arrangement between Senators Lott and Daschle is that 
we would have the right on a subsequent piece of legislation to 
legislate. That is what we want to do. We have cooperated. We have 
moved expeditiously in getting rid of that very large Defense 
appropriations bill in a matter of a day and a half. I hope in the next 
hour and a half we are able to come up with a formula whereby we move 
to the legislative authorization bill and do some legislating.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will consult with my distinguished 
leader on that subject.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator from Virginia will yield for a 
question.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I agree with the comments that were made, 
and I know the desire is to move the Defense authorization bill forward 
with some dispatch. I indicated previously that I intend to offer an 
amendment dealing with sanctions on food and medicine. There are 
national security issues which have compelled us to impose sanctions, 
which include food and medicine, on countries.
  We have debated this at great length. We had 70 votes for this policy 
last year in the Senate. Seventy percent of the Senate said they want 
to strip out food and medicine sanctions. We also have this in our 
appropriations bill, but I understand the legislative leadership is 
going to strip it out, and they have the capability from a 
parliamentary standpoint to do that.
  The only option for those of us who want to get this policy done is 
to put it in a bill that is amendable, like this bill. It is my 
intention to offer an amendment. I will accept a short time limit when 
I do so. It is not my intention to hold things up. This has been 
debated at great length, and 70 percent of the Senators said we want to 
end sanctions on food and medicine with respect to sanctions that exist 
around the world.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I advise my distinguished colleague of the 
following situation: One of the amendments pending at the desk is a 
Warner-Dodd amendment which establishes a Presidential commission to 
examine the overall policy between the United States and Cuba. It is my 
intention, if the parliamentary situation develops and I can do this, 
to ask that that amendment be withdrawn.
  I do that with the greatest reluctance, but I have an obligation as 
manager of this very critical piece of legislation, the annual 
authorization for the Armed Forces of the United States, to compromise 
in my own objectives. One of them, of course, is to support the 
Senator's goals and to support the establishment of a commission. I 
have to do that because two colleagues, very respectfully, in a very 
friendly and forthright manner, told me that if the Warner-Dodd 
amendment remains on the authorization bill, we can anticipate--and I 
use the magic words--a prolonged debate on the Warner-Dodd amendment. 
That prolonged debate, I have to interpret, is a means by which to 
deprive the ability of the managers to move forward in an expeditious 
manner on the authorization bill.
  In recognition of that, I have indicated to my two distinguished 
colleagues and good friends that I am going to withdraw my amendment, 
if I can, from a parliamentary standpoint. I can only anticipate those 
two Members, and indeed probably others, will indicate to the managers 
that should the distinguished colleague from North Dakota desire to 
offer that amendment, whether it is today or at some future time that 
will be available, we can anticipate prolonged debate on the armed 
services authorization bill. That is as much as I can say at this point 
in time.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I understand that. The two managers, 
Senator Warner and Senator Levin, are doing a remarkable job of trying 
to move this legislation forward. It is not my intent to cause 
difficulties, but I do not want one or two Senators holding up the will 
of 70 percent of the Senate, saying this country ought not use food and 
medicine in sanctions anymore.
  If I were assured by somebody that the efforts we have underway--
Senator Ashcroft, myself, Senator Gorton, Senator Dodd, and others--to 
strike these sanctions of food and medicine in other pieces of 
legislation that are coming to the floor were somehow protected, that 
would be one thing. It is quite clear to me, and the leadership said to 
me publicly: We intend to dump them; it does not matter how many people 
support it, we intend to dump them, get rid of them.
  The only opportunity I have is to force my way into this bill. If we 
have an up-or-down vote on this, 70 percent of the Senate and 70 
percent of the House says this country will never use sanctions on the 
shipment of food and medicine, which is wrong, and the only chance I 
have to do that is on a piece of legislation such as this.
  As my colleague knows, we seldom have a piece of legislation on the 
floor that is open for amendment. This one is. I give the Senator my 
assurance that we do not need long debate on this at all. We can debate 
this in a very short order because we had extensive debate last year. 
Seventy Senators said let us not any longer use food and medicine on 
sanctions.
  Mr. WARNER. The distinguished Senator knows the rules of the Senate, 
and further I sayeth not.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if my friend from North Dakota 
will yield.
  First, I join Senator Warner in thanking him for allowing, with such 
graciousness, as always, the interruption of his presentation.
  Secondly, he has a very important amendment. It is an amendment on 
which this Senate has voted, and this vehicle is a perfectly legitimate 
vehicle for legislation. It is one of the few opportunities we have for 
legislation. It is because there are such few opportunities that it has 
attracted this many potential amendments. I do not think anyone needs 
to apologize for that.
  Senator Warner--the way he works so well--and I will attempt to work 
with him and attempt to accommodate Senators who wish to offer 
amendments to this legislation. They need no apologies. We will try to 
work through it.
  I thank the Senator from North Dakota for not just intending to offer 
an important amendment again, but being willing to take a very short 
time agreement on it, which means we can move the bill along.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my good friend from Michigan and I have a 
responsibility to get the bill passed. I have been discouraging, as 
best I can, colleagues from bringing to the floor amendments which are 
not clearly germane to the central purposes of the annual authorization 
bill.
  I hope I am not interpreting his comments as inviting, in contrast to 
my discouraging, such amendments. It is going to take a joint effort.
  I commend our distinguished colleague, Senator Reid of Nevada. He has 
been most helpful, and Senator Lott on my side has supported me in 
trying to get this bill moving. As a matter of fact, Senator Lott has 
given us this time this morning. He has represented to me he will try 
henceforth to give us time in between appropriations bills, which 
understandably is the prime function of the Senate.
  Please, let us not encourage matters by way of amendment which are 
not clearly germane to this bill.

  Mr. LEVIN. If my good friend will yield for a comment on that, I 
happen to share with him the desirability of moving this bill, but I 
also understand the need of colleagues to offer legislation in the 
Senate. That is why we are here.
  The way I would accomplish the goal which the good Senator from 
Virginia has just laid out--a goal I share--would be to encourage 
colleagues who feel strongly about amendments, as the

[[Page S5066]]

Senator from North Dakota does, and understandably so, to agree to 
short time agreements. The shorter the time agreement we can get on 
some of these amendments, particularly amendments which have been 
debated for a long time before, is a way in which we can expedite the 
passage of the bill, and that is the way in which I think effectively 
we can do that.
  Mr. WARNER. We ought to conclude this saying no matter how laudatory 
it is to get short time agreements, practically speaking I can think of 
several amendments on our side which will not be given short time 
agreements on the other side and reciprocally is the situation. We 
ought to stick to the premise of bringing up those matters that are 
germane.
  Mr. LEVIN. I can think of amendments on both sides that could require 
extensive debate, but there may be occasions where cloture is an 
appropriate way in this Senate. We have rules for that. With some of 
these amendments which have been waiting to be offered for so many 
months, I think the best way to do it is deal with them within the 
rules of the Senate. Happily, this is not one of those amendments. We 
should not in any way suggest the amendment of the Senator from North 
Dakota is involved in that particular issue. He is willing to take a 
short time agreement. I think we ought to put that in the bank, get 
this amendment up early, and dispose of it.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, given the shortness of the hour, we should 
yield the floor so our colleague can finish. Perhaps there are others 
who wish to speak, too.

                          ____________________