Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 70 (Monday, May 21, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 70 (Monday, May 21, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5256-S5260]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Amendment No. 660

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the McCain
amendment No. 660. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this amendment would cut the top tax
rate for the wealthiest individuals from 39.6 percent to 38.6 percent
and devote the resulting savings that would have gone to this group to
lower and middle-income taxpayers by increasing the number of
individuals who pay the 15-percent tax rate. When it is finally phased
in, this amendment will place millions of taxpayers now in the 28-
percent tax bracket into the 15-percent tax bracket. Under this
amendment, unmarried individuals can make nearly $30,000 and married
individuals can make $50,000 and still be in the 15-percent tax
bracket.
I urge its adoption and yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, most of those paying the top marginal
rate are small business owners and farmers operating their businesses
as sole proprietorships or S-corporations. A study recently released by
the Treasury shows that under the President's proposal--this is the
President's proposal but still germane--77 percent of the money going
to cut the top 39.6-percent rate would go to small business owners.
These small business owners make up 63 percent of the tax returns that
would benefit from reducing the top rate. Small business owners are, of
course, the engine of growth that runs our economy. These are the
people who plow their tax money and their tax relief right back into
their businesses, increasing wages, hiring more workers.
The number of small businesses that could benefit from a cut in the
top rate, for instance, in the State of Arizona, is around 267,000
small businesses. I seriously question how much we really gain by
attacking these small businesses with high rates.
Another twist is, for those of you who are interested in disabled
children and kids with special needs, there are special needs trusts.
These trusts for the disabled can be easily subject to taxation at the
top rate of 39.6 percent.
I urge Members to vote down the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, on this vote, I have a pair with the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens). If he were present and voting, he
would vote ``nay.'' If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote ``yea.''
Therefore, I withhold my vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 126 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--49

Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cleland
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR--1

Inouye

NOT VOTING--1

Stevens

The amendment (No. 660) was rejected.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Motion to Commit

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on agreeing to the motion
of the Senator from Arizona.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the intention of this amendment is to
commit until we can find out exactly what our expenditures are going to
be for national defense. Recent articles and information clearly
indicate that there will be very little, if any, left over for a
supplemental for any funding that I personally campaigned that the men
and women of the armed services would receive for a national defense
system.
I don't expect to win on this, but I can assure you that with this
tax cut going through as it is, with all of the additional spending
that I have observed over the last few years, which I see no change in
whatsoever, we will not have enough money to defend this Nation's vital
national security interests.
We are embarked on an unusual and dangerous course of action, a
massive tax cut without any indication or evidence whatsoever of how
much we are going to need to spend to defend this Nation. I urge great
caution as we embark on this enterprise because it may be a very
expensive price to pay.
I will take a voice vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, first of all, we all appreciate the
Senator's concern about defense because he is very much an authority in
that area. I am confident, however, that the budget resolution we
passed has provided adequate funding for defense. This amendment would
undo all of our efforts to provide significant cuts at all marginal
rates. Besides, we have $500 billion in the contingency fund that we
will be able to use to draw on if additional money for defense is
needed.
I urge my colleagues to vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered. There
needs to be consent to vitiate them.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be
vitiated.
Mr. REID. Objection.
Mrs. BOXER. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I make a point of order that the
amendment is not germane to the provisions

[[Page S5257]]

of a reconciliation measure. I raise a point of order against the
amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to waive and ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 127 Leg.]

YEAS--43

Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--56

Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Stevens

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 43, the nays 56.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 723

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second-
degree amendment No. 723 by Senator Smith to his first-degree amendment
No. 680. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, my second-degree amendment
is really quite simple. It extends the moratorium on the Internet tax,
and that is the extent of it.
If my colleagues want to continue taxing the Internet or tax the
Internet further, then they vote against me. But if they do not favor
the Internet tax and would like to extend the moratorium against that
tax, then vote with me.
Mr. President, I urge the adoption of my amendment and ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I will be making a motion on the germaneness
of the amendment. First, this amendment is not quite as simple as the
Senator from New Hampshire says. If a State has a sales tax, the
cities, towns, and counties are desperately interested in this. They
will not think it is appropriate to adopt a second-degree amendment
that will preclude them from having any opportunity to continue the
revenue on which they are counting for their schools and other forms of
government.
The retailers in our States will not be very happy with that simple
change of policy allowing that tax to be destroyed. If a colleague is
from a State that does not have a sales tax, he or she would want to
vote against this amendment. The reason they would want to vote against
it is because they would not want the other 44 States to take an
opportunity later to take away a major source of their revenue.
This needs a lot of work. There has been a bipartisan group of us
working on this issue for almost a year. We have been working with the
retailers, direct marketers, and all levels of government.
The pending amendment is not germane to the provisions of the
reconciliation measure. I, therefore, raise a point of order against
the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget
Act and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 11, nays 88, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 128 Leg.]

YEAS--11

Allard
Allen
Boxer
Brownback
Craig
Crapo
Gregg
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--88

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--1

Stevens

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question the yeas are 11 and the nays
are 88. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having
voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to explain my vote against this
amendment to the tax bill that we are debating today. The record
clearly shows my strong support for the Internet, which is still in its
infancy. I believe that Congress needs to give it the time and space to
continue to grow and evolve without complex and burdensome taxation.
In October 1998 Congress enacted the Internet Tax Freedom Act. At
that time, I supported placing a three year moratorium on the
imposition of any new state and local sales tax on Internet access and
precluding charging sales tax for purchases over the Internet that do
not apply to other mediums. I was also very supporting of the 19 member
Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce that the Act created to
review a variety of tax issues relating to electronic commerce,
including the taxation of all interstate commerce whether by the
Internet or more traditional methods. I must say that I was
disappointed that the Commission was not able to make substantive
recommendations on most of the key issues before it.
However, I am hopeful that current negotiations now ongoing here in
the Senate will produce legislation to address this issue in an
effective and equitable manner. For that reason, I am voting against
this amendment. I think that the amendment is well intentional, but
that we need to give the current negotiations more time to play out in
the Commerce Committee before taking action.

[[Page S5258]]

Amendment No. 680

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the first-
degree amendment No. 680 by the Senator from New Hampshire.
Who yields time?
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The amendment numbered 680 is the law
enforcement survivor benefits. In 1997, Congress passed legislation to
take care of not taxing the benefits to children whose fathers died in
the line of duty as law enforcement officers. Unfortunately, there was
a period of about 13 years and these children were not taken out of
that; therefore, families were faced with a tragedy--children were
paying taxes on the benefits.
This amendment clarifies that. So for all of those children whose
fathers or mothers died in the line of duty, those benefits will not be
taxed.
I believe the yeas and nays have been ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, speaking for myself and Senator Baucus,
we urge the entire Senate to vote for this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I state for the record I am perfectly
willing to not have a recorded vote, but I am told others want a
recorded vote. I don't want to get the blame for having a recorded
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been called for.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent the yeas and nays be vitiated.
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The question is on
agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 129 Leg.]

YEAS--99

Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Stevens

The amendment (No. 680) was agreed to.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 684

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Many of our colleagues claim that the nation can afford massive tax
cuts and adequate education investments. This amendment holds them to
their word. It says that the wealthiest one percent of taxpayers will
not see a cut in the top income tax rate until education is funded at
the amounts that the Senate recently authorized.
In the last 2 weeks, the Senate has voted overwhelmingly--to fully
fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; to fully fund
Title I state grants for disadvantaged students; to improve teacher
quality for all students; to improve education for students with
limited English proficiency; and to expand access to safe after-school
activities.
Were these cruel hoaxes on the nation's children, or were they good
faith statements of the education investments needed today? Let's get
our priorities straight, and provide tax breaks to the wealthy only
after we have met our commitments to the nation's school children.
Tax breaks targeted to the richest 1 percent should not be allowed to
crowd out basic education services. If we do not have the resources to
provide the most basic education services, then we certainly do not
have the resources to provide new tax breaks for the wealthiest among
us.
I will yield the 30 seconds to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, to underscore the point, we have voted now
on several occasions over the past number of weeks for full funding of
title I, full funding of the IDEA, special education. What we are
saying is it is going to be difficult to meet those obligations unless
we provide room in the budget. The only way to do that is by reducing
the tax cut a marginal amount so those costs can be met. That is what
the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts does. We urge its
adoption.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this amendment delays the tax cuts until
a certain level of funding for education is met. Everybody knows that
education is a top priority of this Congress, as well as of President
Bush. Hopefully, we will finish a major education reform bill this week
in the Senate.
This tax bill contains over $30 billion of education tax incentives.
There is no reason to delay other tax relief to accomplish something
outside the jurisdiction of this bill.
I believe there is a germaneness issue here, so I ask the pending
amendment be found not to be germane to the provisions of the
reconciliation measure. I raise a point of order against the amendment
under section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of
that act for consideration of the pending amendment.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 130 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--51

Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Stevens

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are
51. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, could we have order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask

[[Page S5259]]

unanimous consent that we adjourn for the evening and continue voting
on these amendments to the tax bill in the light of day tomorrow
morning----
MR. BUNNING. I object.
Mrs. BOXER. At a time to be determined by the two leaders.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. BOXER. It is very late. These are very important matters. This
tax bill is going to change the course of this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the unanimous consent
request.
Mrs. BOXER. We ought to go home and get a good night's sleep and then
continue voting.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I respectfully urge the majority leader to
put us out. Let's come back on tomorrow and finish voting on these
amendments. It is 15 minutes after 11 o'clock. We have several
amendments yet listed. I think the Senators ought to have an
opportunity to call up those amendments. And Senators ought to be able
to understand what they are voting on.
Why is it that we have to continue going tonight?
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. If Senator Byrd will yield, I note that just a few minutes
ago we even had a 99-0 vote on an amendment that the sponsor was
perfectly willing to have accepted by a voice vote. Actually, we have a
limited number of amendments here. I would hope some of them would not
be offered or could be withdrawn or could be accepted in the manager's
package. We should be close to finishing this legislation.
We had indicated for days, including at the beginning of this bill,
that we needed to complete action tonight because we have other very
important work to do this week. I know Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, and
others were ready to go back to the education bill in the morning.
That, too, is very important. And we need the time to go into
conference between the Members of this body and the other body and
complete action on this very important legislation. I know of no
legislation that will be more important than what we are doing tonight.
I have been very diligent as all Senators know, in trying to be
respectful of Senators' needs to do other events. It is getting harder
and harder. There is an event every night. There are events during the
day. And we try to accommodate all Senators.
But I think that as close as we are, and as far as we have come, if
the Senators will just forbear--and we will work with the managers of
the legislation--we could complete it tonight.
I am afraid if we stop now and come back tomorrow, the number of
amendments will grow. We have not been able to get a limit or agreement
to withhold on amendments. I had hoped we could do that.
As difficult as it may be, Senators are minding the store, staying in
the Chamber. Most of these votes have been occurring in less than 12
minutes, or 15 minutes at the most. If we will continue on, we should
be able to complete this by midnight and then go on to other important
legislation.
I thank Senator Byrd for yielding to me in order to respond to his
question.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator from West Virginia yield to me for 1
minute?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I don't have the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been here since 9:30 this morning
with Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus. I would like to go home. I am
willing to work through whatever time it takes. I say to my friend from
Mississippi, the majority leader, we are not going to finish by
midnight. We have on this side 20 more amendments at least. I wish it
were not so, but that is the fact of life. We are not going to finish
by midnight. At four amendments per hour, there are 5 more hours at a
minimum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we are not going to finish this bill
tonight. We are just not going to finish it. I hope the majority leader
will let us go home. Not everybody in this Chamber has a wife who is as
old as I am. We will be married 64 years next Tuesday. I think it is
time to go home.
I have been here many nights late. It has been my experience that
when you reach this point in time, you don't accomplish a great deal.
One Senator can pretty much take a lot of time right at this point. I
don't want to do that. I ask the distinguished majority leader to get a
unanimous consent request and put us out. Let us come back in tomorrow,
and we will all feel better. I need to get home. I just plead with the
leadership, we don't have to finish this bill tonight. We don't have
to.
This is Monday, isn't it? So we have several days yet left in the
week. There is no reason why we have to pass this bill tonight and stay
until midnight or 1 or 2 in the morning. To begin with, this is a bad
bill. It ought not pass.
I am going to ask the majority leader once more to put us out.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know from past experience in the Senate,
and from observing the Senate from the House, there have been many
occasions when the Senate stayed late, beyond even midnight. I believe
one time, in the case of a gas deregulation bill, they went very late.
There is need to finish this legislation tonight. If it goes over to
tomorrow, we should just continue going.
This is very important legislation, to be followed by other very
important legislation. If we had some sort of understanding, some
finite list of amendments, that would be certainly worth considering.
It is important, from my conversation with Senator Daschle, to note
even now, without completing this legislation, we still will have work
to do on Friday and possibly Saturday.

Again, it is important that we complete this work. It is important
that we complete it so we can go on and begin the conference and go
back to the education bill. It is not that late by comparison. I urge
the Senate to continue its work.
I know there had been a feeling that we should not complete it
tonight. We need to do it. We have been working on this legislation one
way or another for at least 3 months. We know how the final result will
go, and I urge the Senate to move forward with the amendments that are
offered and get to a final conclusion tonight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has made a unanimous consent
request. Is there objection? Without objection, the Senator is
recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, what was the request?
Mr. BAUCUS. I asked unanimous consent to address the Senate for 1
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. I ask the Senator from Mississippi whether he would be
willing to entertain putting us out tonight so long as we can develop a
list of subsequent amendments to be offered, say, by tomorrow? I say
that to my friend because there are so many amendments that could
otherwise be offered tonight, we are going to be here until 6 in the
morning at least.
I very much agree with the Senator from West Virginia. There is a
time and a place for everything. The time to end is probably about now.
Perhaps we could put together a list of amendments with the
understanding that that is the list, those are the amendments because,
as we all know, at this point any number of amendments could be offered
even subsequent to those that are being contemplated. I ask the Senator
if he would contemplate that?

[[Page S5260]]

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield, there has been no end to the
amendments that might be offered. I know a number of Senators have
three or four more amendments. I would be interested in seeing if we
can get an agreement on the amendments that would be proposed. That
would give us something we could at least consider. But in the
meantime, we could continue to make progress on the legislation while
we are seeing if there is some sort of list that can be developed. I
think that to stop now, without even knowing what the final product is
going to be, what amendments might be offered or when the final
conclusion would come, is not the way to proceed.
I know there are those who don't want us to ever complete this
legislation. I understand that. But we have had a full debate. We have
complied with the rules that apply. And we have made it very clear for
days, including before we began this series of votes, that our intent
was to go until we concluded.
At this point, let's proceed with the amendments that are pending. I
believe Senator Feingold has an amendment that he is ready to offer,
and I would be glad to discuss with anybody what the final package of
amendments, what list of amendments might be developed, and we will see
where we are. I will be glad to yield to Senator Nickles.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the majority leader has requested that we
proceed with the next vote, and during the next vote Senator Reid and I
will see if we can't collect a list and come up with a finite list of
amendments to see what we have remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the Feingold amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I am entitled to recognition. I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum call is not in order at this time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appeal the decision of the Chair, and I
ask for the yeas and nays. I appeal the decision of the Chair and ask
for the yeas and nays. I appeal the decision of the Chair, Mr.
President. I am entitled to that request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let the Chair state the request.
Mr. KENNEDY. I appeal the decision of the Chair on this, and I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is appealing the decision of the
Chair that a quorum call is not in order at this time while 2 minutes
remain on the amendment. Does the Senator seek the yeas and nays on the
appeal?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Is it the Chair's ruling that a request for a quorum is
not in order because there are still 2 minutes remaining on the
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. Would a request for a quorum be in order at the
conclusion of the 2 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from
Massachusetts be recognized at the conclusion of the 2 minutes to make
his suggestion.
Mr. BUNNING. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The question is, shall the decision of the Chair stand? The yeas and
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 131 Leg.]

YEAS--99

NOT VOTING--1

Stevens

The ruling of the Chair was sustained as the judgment of the Senate.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I seek recognition under leader time so I
can propound a unanimous consent request and get an understanding as to
how we are going to proceed at this point.
First of all, I think it is unfortunate that we see there is a delay
being forced. I understand there are Senators who think we have gone
late enough tonight and would like for us to resume tomorrow. It is
very important we complete this work, and obviously we will not go to
any other legislation until we complete this very important work of the
people.
I have listened to Senators on both sides of the aisle and am trying
to find a way to give Senators a chance to offer their amendments and
have them considered. I hope that it will not be delayed indefinitely.
Certainly that would be a subversion of the rules, but we will take a
time out here and hopefully tomorrow Senators will be prepared to
resume our work and bring it to a conclusion.
I believe Senator Daschle intends to work with me and the managers of
the legislation to try to find a way to bring this debate to a
reasonable conclusion. But I emphasize again, we have work we need to
do this week, and if we have to go on into Friday or Saturday, I think
we should be prepared to do that. Senators on both sides have indicated
they would be willing to do that.

____________________