[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 68 (Thursday, May 23, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4792-S4793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 2551

  Mr. DASCHLE. Prior to that, I urge our colleagues to consider the 
final piece of business. I am pleased the distinguished chair of the 
Appropriations Committee is on the floor. He and I have had many 
conversations with regard to the need to pass the supplemental.
  The President has admonished the Senate to complete our work on the 
supplemental before Memorial Day. I have indicated to Senator Byrd that 
that would be my desire, to complete our work on the supplemental prior 
to Memorial Day. And I indicated on the Senate floor earlier today it 
would be my hope that we could complete our work.
  Obviously, there are many pieces of legislation that await us when we 
return.
  So for a lot of reasons, the fact that this money is going primarily 
to defense and homeland security--we have seen warnings now issued in 
the last couple of weeks with regard to the need to respond even more 
consequentially to our homeland security requirements--I think the 
urgency of the bill is very much in evidence.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following 
the disposition of the trade bill, the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of S. 2551, the Senate supplemental appropriations bill; 
that there be 10 hours for debate on the bill, equally divided between 
the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee; 
that all amendments be relevant to the bill and limited to 30 minutes 
of debate, equally divided in the usual form, with the amendment debate 
time counting toward the 10-hour cap; and that upon the disposition of 
the amendments, the bill be read a third time and passed, without any 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN.--and I will object--first of all, I believe it is the 
procedure in the Congress for all revenue bills to be passed by the 
other body first. Isn't that correct? We would wait for the other body 
to proceed with their completion of the appropriations bill, which they 
have not done.
  Madam President, just last night my office received these two 
documents: one at 50-some pages and the other 50-some pages, which is 
an explanatory statement of the recommendations of the Senate 
committee. We have not had a chance, obviously, to go through that long 
appropriations bill.
  I noticed, among other supplemental appropriations, there is $5 
million for individual quota fishing loans. I knew we were in an 
emergency here in the country--these fishing loans for halibut, I guess 
there is a halibut problem up in Alaska of which, unfortunately, the 
Nation has not been made aware.
  But buried in this bill are other ``emergencies,'' such as the 
halibut emergency for $5 million. There are fundamental changes made in 
the aviation loan program which was passed overwhelmingly by this body 
for the airlines, which really has nothing to do with supplemental 
appropriations. There are many other policy changes, as is the practice 
of the Appropriations Committee--as is the practice.
  I am not going to agree to any unanimous consent request. This bill 
has been over since April. We just got it last night. And you expect us 
to agree to 10 hours of debate and passing this bill? No. No. It is 
disgraceful.
  We are going to change the way we do business around here. The 
appropriators are going to understand that there are other Senators who 
need to be involved when in an emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill there are policy changes which have nothing to do with any 
national emergency--whether they be a change to the aviation loan 
program or whether they be an emergency for halibut.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, let me respond briefly, because I know 
the distinguished Republican leader would like to make a comment as 
well.
  With regard to the House action, of course, we wouldn't complete our 
work on the bill until the House has done its work. We expect that will 
be done shortly. We have done similar appropriations work on many 
occasions in the past. We need to move forward.
  As I said, there is an urgency to many of the provisions of this 
legislation. We are talking about defense and homeland security in 
particular.
  I would also note that this bill is subject to amendment. Senators 
wishing to offer amendments would be entitled to do so.
  I am disappointed we were not able to get the unanimous consent 
agreement. I think it does again delay our chances to complete this 
work and to get it done in a way that accommodates the President's 
request and our appreciation for the urgency of addressing this work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, we received this request at approximately 
5:28 this afternoon. I will make a couple of points with regard to the 
legislation, some of it with regard to what Senator McCain was just 
saying.
  I understand the Senate bill was reported last night and we were only 
able to get a copy of the measure earlier today. Senator McCain and 
others are going through the bill to see exactly what its present 
condition is. It is obviously in the legislative process. It is 
different from what the President had requested. It is different from 
what the House passed. Therefore, we need to make sure we know exactly 
the present condition of what is in the bill.
  For instance, the President asked for this supplemental for defense 
and homeland security, about $27.1 billion. The House-passed bill that 
we have not yet received is at approximately $29.4 billion. This bill 
is approximately $31 billion.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question on that?
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it the Senator's recollection that when this side 
of the aisle was in the majority, the other side always insisted that 
the appropriations bills come over from the House before the Senate 
would be allowed to act? Is that not the recollection of the Senator?
  Mr. LOTT. I know in the past my colleagues on the other side insisted 
we wait on the House appropriations bill in order to provide a defense 
of germaneness. So that has been the practice; the Senator is correct.
  I understand we are going to get the House bill later tonight, but it 
may be, actually, in the morning before we get it. I also understand 
that no report was filed with the bill, although there is some sort of 
explanatory statement. Perhaps that will be helpful and maybe that is 
intended to be in place of the report. That is a concern, too.

  The consent that was propounded asked for debate and amendment limits 
before Members even really knew what

[[Page S4793]]

we would be amending. It puts us in a very difficult position.
  Having said all of that, certainly this measure is vitally important. 
I have already been talking to Senator Daschle about what is the best 
way to go to it, what is the earliest time we could go to it. Even if 
we took it up and some wanted time later on tonight or tomorrow, it 
looks to me as if it would take quite some time to get it done. We 
would not be able to get into conference with the House before we come 
back from the Memorial Day recess.
  I am hoping we could go ahead and talk back and forth and try to get 
agreement that when we come back from the recess, if we don't get some 
agreement worked out otherwise, it would be the pending business or we 
would quickly get a process so we could start work on it Monday when we 
come back or Tuesday, the 4th, and hopefully get agreement relatively 
quickly, even with amendments, once people know what they are amending, 
and then be able to get it right on in to the conference with the 
House.
  Clearly, we do need to get this done. I must say that it has been a 
slow process. The request from the administration was slow coming. The 
bill coming from the House has been slow. Now here we are right up 
against this recess. It has not been the best way to do it.
  It is about $4 billion more than what the President asked. I am sure 
the mix within that $31 billion has been changed. We need to take a 
look at it. Hurriedly, we have been trying to go through what has been 
added. Clearly, a lot of it is not national defense or homeland 
security related: things such as the senior farmer's market nutrition 
program, money for a national polar orbiting operating environmental 
satellite system, some amount of money for attorney retention allowance 
for the District for attorneys that, even though they got a bonus for 
staying with DC, they subsequently became union members and were not 
entitled to the bonus. This would say they can keep the bonus. There is 
U.N. population fund language in here which always causes a fuss.
  Just looking hurriedly over the amendments on agriculture, justice, 
commerce, DOD, education, a lot of issues that would not be described 
in any way as relating to national defense and homeland security, we 
need a little time to review all this and see what amendments may be 
necessary.
  I must say--I know Senator Byrd understands this--I always am very 
antsy about proceeding without Senator Stevens being around when we are 
doing appropriations bills. So that is a factor, too.

                          ____________________