[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 136 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Page S11028]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 782

  Mr. DeWINE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to 
the consideration of H.R. 782, regarding the Older Americans Act, and 
it be considered under the following terms: 30 minutes for debate on 
the bill equally divided in the usual form; that the only amendments in 
order be the following: One amendment offered by Senator Gregg relating 
to title V, which would be 2 hours equally divided for that particular 
amendment, and an additional amendment offered by Senator Gregg 
relating to title V, and that would be 2 hours equally divided as well, 
with no other amendments or motions in order to the bill.

  I further ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding 
back of time on each amendment, the Senate proceed to a vote on each 
amendment. Further, I ask that, following the disposition of the above 
amendments, the bill be read the third time and the Senate then proceed 
to passage of H.R. 782, as amended, if amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I say to my friend from Ohio 
who read the unanimous consent request, the substance of the agreement 
is fine with the minority. We would only hope that there could be a 
definite time locked in for a vote. During the last couple of weeks, 
there have been a lot of Members who simply have not known when they 
were going to be called upon to vote. They have other business they are 
conducting. We, again, have no disagreement with the substance of the 
unanimous consent agreement. However, we object unless we can get a 
definite time as to when we can vote.
  I also say, through the Chair to my friend from Ohio, it is not as if 
there are a number of votes being anticipated here so that we are going 
to slow things up if you set, for example, 5 o'clock, which we would 
suggest, as a definite time for voting on these amendments. So until we 
can get a definite time locked in for voting on the amendments, at or 
about 5 o'clock, we would object, and I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, if I could, let me thank my colleague from 
Nevada. I understand there is no objection, actually, to the substance, 
then, of the agreement and what we are waiting for is some agreement 
with regard to the actual time the votes will actually take place. Is 
that correct?
  Mr. REID. Yes. I say to my friend, we believe it is a very important 
piece of legislation. We are glad it is here. We think the time 
arrangement on the amendments offered by the Senator from New Hampshire 
is fair. We simply believe we need a time certain to vote. That should 
be easy to get. I hope the majority leader will agree to that as soon 
as possible.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague.

                          ____________________