[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 97 (Monday, July 24, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7469-S7470]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, we also need to get the intelligence 
authorization bill done this week. I don't think it will take that long 
to complete it, although I suspect there are at least a couple issues 
that will have to be debated and voted on. I had the impression maybe 
half a day or a night would be all that would be necessary to complete 
this. I am hoping maybe sometime even Thursday we might complete it, 
and before, if possible.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 654, S. 2507, the intelligence 
authorization bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I say to my 
friend, the majority leader, on the minority side we also want to move 
on. We think there is a lot of work that could be done and should be 
done. For example, on Friday, with the energy and water appropriations 
bill, there was a provision in there that is very objectionable to a 
number of people on this side of the aisle, not the least of whom is 
the minority leader. The minority leader said take that out; it can be 
dealt with in conference. We think that is the case.
  That is my bill. It is a very important bill, almost $23 billion. All 
of this money is discretionary money. It is a very important 
appropriation bill on which Senator Domenici and I have worked. We wish 
we could move that forward. We think it should move forward.
  I also say to my friend, the majority leader, I think it is 
unfortunate that we have been unable today to deal with Senator Hatch. 
I understand there is a big celebration in Utah, Pioneer Day, on July 
24, and he is committed to be there. I hope this evening or tomorrow we 
can sit down and talk. For example, I believe the judge's name is 
White, a Michigan judge, who has been before the committee and has not 
had a hearing; the nomination had been sent to the committee almost 
1,200 days ago. In meeting with Senator Hatch and learning what his 
problems are, we will try to be as understanding as we can of his 
problems. I hope he will be as understanding of our problems as we are 
of his.
  Senator Daschle and I said this on Thursday: We appreciate very much 
the work the majority leader has done. As powerful as he is, he still 
cannot overrule all the committee chairmen. They are here by virtue of 
their seniority. It makes it very tough to do that. We want to work to 
move this along. We believe the energy and water bill could move in a 
day or a day and a half.
  Treasury-Postal: We don't believe that is a difficult bill. There are 
a couple touchy issues on that, but we believe we could work with the 
majority and move that along. We don't want it to appear that we are 
trying to hold things up. I think we have a pretty good record the past 
month or so of working with the leader.
  In short, we hope in the meeting with Senator Hatch, either tonight 
or tomorrow, we will be in a position where we can expedite the rest of 
the work this week and move on to other things.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I want to note that I did not move to 
proceed to the energy and water appropriations bill. I did that on 
purpose. I did it out of respect for the Democratic leader and the 
objection he has made to a particular section and the fact that it is 
obviously something very important to him and the Senators from North 
Dakota and South Dakota and other States.
  But there are Senators on both sides of the aisle who actually 
support section 103 because of the impact this might have on the 
Missouri downriver in States such as Missouri, Illinois, and perhaps 
even, most importantly, as far as my own State of Mississippi. I talked 
to Senator Domenici and Senator Daschle this morning. I still hope we 
can find a way to resolve that. If that one issue can be resolved, I 
think that bill might take a couple hours and could be completed. I 
still have that on our list as one of the three bills we really must do 
this week.
  With regard to the judges, I have made a commitment to try to 
continue to move judges who have been reported by the Judiciary 
Committee. I continue to urge the chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
to act on those judges who could be reported out. They did report out 
five judges last week, including a circuit judge from the State of 
Nevada who will wind up being on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 
California, I guess, and so I think I have been keeping my word to try 
to move those.
  I believe the Judiciary Committee is prepared to have a hearing or is 
having a hearing tomorrow and will move at least four more judges 
tomorrow. I think it would be unfortunate if those four got tangled up 
in these difficulties we are outlining now.
  It is very hard for me to understand why these appropriations bills 
and this authorization bill, the intelligence authorization bill, would 
be held up over one circuit court judge or even two circuit court 
judges who may still be acted on or have hearings and be reported out. 
But the majority leader cannot just direct the Judiciary Committee or 
the chairman that he must report a specific judge. I think it is 
responsible for me to say: Report those judges where you can and that 
can be cleared and voted on. But I am not now in a position to 
guarantee that a specific one judge will be reported by the Judiciary 
Committee. We will keep working with the chairman of the committee, and 
hopefully some solution can be found. I think we can find it.
  In the meantime, we are losing a day here. I hope we don't lose all 
day tomorrow. But that is our goal this week, to try to get some 
judges, try to do two or three appropriations bills, try to do 
intelligence authorization, and to begin debate on the China PNTR 
issue.
  I guess there is no option for me at this time, though, but to move 
to proceed to the bill.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I move to proceed to S. 2507, and I send a 
cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

  We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of 
Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring 
to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 654, S. 
2507, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001:
         Trent Lott, Richard Shelby, Connie Mack, Ben Nighthorse 
           Campbell, Michael D. Crapo, Rick Santorum, Wayne 
           Allard, Judd Gregg, Christopher Bond, Conrad Burns, 
           Craig Thomas, Larry E. Craig, Robert F. Bennett, Orrin 
           Hatch, Pat Roberts, and Fred Thompson.


[[Page S7470]]


  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, this cloture vote will occur on Wednesday, 
unless we are already in a post cloture situation on the Treasury-
Postal Service appropriations bill, or unless, of course, we have done 
away with the procedure and found a way to go directly to the substance 
of the bill. And, again, I hope we can do that.
  I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I now withdraw the motion to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The motion is 
withdrawn.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, before the leader leaves the floor, I want 
to say very quickly--and we need not discuss the issue of judges--this 
Senate really did well last week. Around the country, there were a 
series of editorials that were supportive of what the Senate did 
regarding the appellate judge; they were all positive for the majority 
and minority. That was a good move.
  One reason, as I indicated, is that one of the Senators is upset 
because his judge is taking some 1,200 days before a hearing. Also, we 
recognize that the number of judges approved, while we have done quite 
well in the last few weeks, is still way behind what it should be.
  I wanted to direct a question to the majority leader. Are we still 
going to have a vote at 6 o'clock? We are getting telephone calls in 
both Cloakrooms.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, we could manufacture a vote, as the 
Senator knows, and force that vote. But in light of all that is going 
on, I don't see that it would serve any purpose other than sort of a 
bed check vote. It had been my intent to have votes on amendments to 
the Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill, but that is not 
possible. I think since we have had to take this action and file 
cloture, we should announce that there will not be a recorded vote or 
votes tonight at 6 o'clock.
  The next opportunity to vote, I presume, will possibly be in the 
morning. I hope we can begin to make progress in some way during the 
day today, or early tomorrow, so votes can be held, if necessary, 
before the luncheon, or immediately thereafter.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I want the Record to reflect that during 
the past week, on Mondays--last Monday, we had lots and lots of votes. 
The preceding Friday, we had lots and lots of votes. If the public is 
looking at the number of votes cast, we are doing pretty well.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I don't know what the number was, but I 
think on Thursday, Friday, Monday, and Tuesday of last week and the 
previous week, we probably cast at least 20, 25 votes--maybe 30. So we 
certainly are turning out votes and getting our work done. We had a 
very good week last week and the week before. I hope we are going to 
have one yet this week. We are just not ready to make a lot of progress 
today.

                          ____________________