[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14244-14250]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                              QUORUM CALL

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. I don't believe there was objection.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will continue to call the roll.
  The legislative clerk resumed the call of the roll and the following 
Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names:

                             [Quorum No. 7]

     Coverdell
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lott
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Voinovich
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to 
request the presence of absent Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is in order since a quorum is not 
present.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. 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 Texas (Mr. Gramm) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 183 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln

[[Page 14245]]


     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Breaux
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gramm
     Harkin
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senate has a responsibility, obviously, 
to do the people's business. Up until a couple of days ago, we were 
doing pretty good this year. We had already moved four appropriations 
bills. We had taken up a number of important issues including the Y2K 
liability bill, the financial services modernization, the national 
missile defense bill, education. We were moving right along. But all of 
a sudden a couple of days ago that stopped.
  Why is that? It is because the Democrats--Senator Kennedy, Senator 
Daschle, Senator Feinstein, and others--want to offer an unrelated bill 
to agriculture appropriations. That bill is the Patients' Bill of 
Rights.
  Going back to last fall, we have talked many times about finding a 
way to have that legislation considered, trying to come up with some 
timeframe that is fair to all. Consistently we have had requests for 
many amendments. I don't know, I think it started off with the 
Democrats saying they had to have 40 amendments. I believe at some 
point it got down to 20, although it is not clear to me they would even 
agree to limit it to 20.
  On the other hand, we have argued we have a good Patients' Bill of 
Rights bill, one that was developed by a task force chaired by Senator 
Nickles which included Senator Collins, Dr. Bill Frist, Senator 
Santorum, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Roth. A really good group 
worked very hard to come up with a good bill, with some provisions for 
protections of patients' rights, with provisions for an appeals process 
when there is a disagreement with a decision within a managed care 
facility, both internally and externally. It is a good bill. We are 
prepared to vote on that.
  The Democrats, on the other hand, have a bill of their own that takes 
a very different approach, and a big part of it is lawsuits will be the 
final arbiter on how these health decisions will be made.
  We say if you have a good package, let's vote on yours. We will vote 
on ours. This week we, in effect, did that. We voted not to table our 
proposal, and we voted to table the underlying Kennedy amendment.
  We have tried very hard to come up with a way for this to be 
considered without it becoming an obstruction to the people's business.
  What is the people's business? The bill pending is the agriculture 
appropriations bill, $60.7 billion for the farmers in America. But it 
goes beyond just farmers. It also includes such programs as food 
stamps, women, infants, children, school breakfast, and lunch programs. 
It is a broad bill and an important bill. At a time when our farmers 
have lost markets and are having a tough time, we are tied up and 
delaying the agriculture appropriations bill with an unrelated measure.
  In addition to that, we have ready for consideration the 
transportation appropriations bill, the State-Justice-Commerce 
appropriations bill, the foreign operations appropriations bill, and I 
believe in short order the Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill.
  In addition to that, we have very important legislation such as the 
intelligence authorization bill we need to have considered, now that we 
have passed the defense authorization and appropriations bills. We have 
the very critical question of how are we going to deal with the nuclear 
espionage at our labs around the country. We have an important proposal 
pending on that. We have several very important appropriations bills 
that we need to move. They are the people's business.
  The point is, we want to have our other measure considered. We have 
gone back and forth. Senator Daschle and I have worked through the last 
36 hours or so. We have gone back and forth with alternative 
suggestions. We started out 2 nights ago saying maybe we can do it this 
Wednesday and Thursday and be through with it Thursday night. That did 
not get very far.
  Then we said, how about if we take it up July 12 when we come back 
from the recess and we will spend that Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, 
Thursday and by the close of business on Thursday we will have 
completed this debate.
  Maybe some people say that is not enough time. That is a pretty long 
period of time for debate on a legislative measure, and it is a long 
period of time when you take into consideration the other work that we 
really must do for the people in passing appropriations bills, in 
complying with the budget resolution, and the reconciliation bill to 
allow us to return some of the tax overpayment to the working people of 
this country. That is a long period of time in the middle of the summer 
when our focus really needs to be on considering the appropriations 
bills that provide what the people in this country need from their 
Government, if you are convinced these appropriations bills do that.
  We talk about agriculture and transportation. You can certainly argue 
that. Foreign operations, here is a time when we have very delicate 
relations around the world. We just passed the State Department 
authorization bill after about 3 years of trying. It seems now we need 
to provide the funds that go along with that. So we went back and 
forth.
  I want to read the latest iteration as of 6:30 last night, June 23, 
of what we offered to try to get this matter considered by itself and 
in a reasonable period of time. Apparently, for a variety of reasons, 
we have not been able to get this agreed to or worked out:

       I ask unanimous consent----

  I am not asking this, I am just reading the consent request because 
it is obvious there would be objection to it----

     that the text of amendment No. 703, as modified, or 702--

  That would be either the Kennedy version or the Republican version--

     be introduced by the majority leader, or his designee, and 
     become the pending business at 1 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 
     1999, with a vote occurring on final passage at the close of 
     business Thursday, July 15, and the bill be subject to the 
     following agreement: That all amendments in order to the bill 
     be relevant to the subject of amendment No. 703 or 702 or 
     health care tax cuts, and all first-degree amendments be 
     offered in an alternating fashion, and all first and second-
     degree amendments be limited to 2 hours each to be equally 
     divided in the usual form.

  Two hours for the first-degree amendment; 2 hours for the second-
degree amendment. I don't know quite what that adds up to over a period 
of a week, but a lot of amendments could be considered under that 
period of time. I think 2 hours is a reasonable period of time when you 
take into consideration the significance of some of the issues that 
would be debated. In some instances it would not take 2 hours; it might 
not take 30 minutes.
  I assume that somebody is going to offer an amendment both sides will 
like, and we will say: Yes, we'll take that. So it would not take that 
long.

       I further ask consent that second degree amendments be 
     limited to 1 second degree amendment per side, with no 
     motions to commit or recommit in order, or any other act with 
     regard to the amendments in order, and that just prior to 
     third reading of the bill, it be in order for the majority 
     leader, or his designee, to offer a final amendment, with no 
     second degree amendments in order.
       I further ask consent that following passage of the bill, 
     that should the bill, upon passage, contain any revenue blue 
     slip matter that the bill remain at the desk and that when 
     the Senate receives the House companion bill, that the Senate 
     proceed to its immediate consideration, all after the 
     enacting clause be stricken, and the text of the Senate 
     passed bill be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill as amended 
     be passed, [and] the Senate insist on its amendment. . . .

  Very simply, that is to avoid the blue slip problem with the House of 
Representatives of a measure we pass that has revenue in it and to make 
sure this matter does not just die aborning here.


[[Page 14246]]

       I further ask consent that no other amendments relative to 
     the Patients' Bill of Rights be in order, for the remainder 
     of the first session of the 106th Congress.
       Once again, let's have the debate, have the amendments. 
     Let's have a vote--win or lose, whichever side. Then you move 
     on.
       I further ask consent that at any time on Thursday, July 
     15, it be in order for the Majority Leader, if he deems 
     necessary, to offer a comprehensive amendment containing 
     several provisions, that the amendments/titles therein be 
     considered en bloc and a vote occur on or in relation to that 
     amendment, with no second degree amendments in order, prior 
     to 3rd reading and the offering of the last amendment by the 
     Majority Leader.

  That is traditionally the way it has happened. The majority leader--
the majority gets to offer the last amendment or substitute, for that 
matter.

       Finally, [we] announce . . . the two Leaders [will work 
     together to agree] to pass three to five of the remaining 
     appropriations bills available, prior to the July 4th Recess.

  And we listed the appropriations bills.
  I wanted to make sure everybody knew that--both the Democrats and 
Republicans, and members of the media, and our constituency--because I 
think it is a fair proposal. Basically, it is 4 days on this subject, 
with designated periods of time, with an end date involved--Thursday, 
July 15.
  Amendments could be offered. I do not know how many that would 
provide for, but I presume as many as 16, maybe more, depending on how 
long it takes on some of them and how much time would be yielded back.
  Let me just say, there is not 100-percent agreement on our side of 
the aisle that we should do this. But at some point you have to come to 
an agreement of how you proceed and how you get an issue considered, 
how you get it voted on. This seemed fair to me.
  Frankly, I do not even like the idea of putting time limits on these 
amendments. I think we ought to have a jump ball, call it up on Monday, 
the 12th, and offer amendments. Let's debate them and vote and, when we 
get to the 15th and have final passage. But there was a feeling, to 
some degree on both sides, that we ought to have some time limit 
specified in that agreement.
  I think we are dealing here with sort of a Molotov minuet. Everything 
we have tried to do, we are being met with: No. Nyet. We can't do that. 
No. We can't do something else.
  I began to wonder, do we want to address this issue or do we just 
want the issue? I have been through that before.
  I can remember we had the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill a few years ago--3 
years ago--and as long as everybody was all dug in and saying, we are 
not going to consider that, we are not going to do this and not going 
to do that, nothing happened. Once we finally said, we are going to do 
it, we did it and moved on.
  I think that is what we ought to do--move on here, have a focused 
debate, have some amendments, vote on them, and be done with it.
  Where are we at this particular time?
  We do have pending, I guess, an amendment by the Senator from 
California, Mrs. Feinstein, that she feels very strongly about. I would 
like to get a time agreement on that amendment and have it considered 
and vote on it and move on.
  We have a Frist second-degree amendment by Senator Frist from 
Tennessee that will be offered.
  But I also should make this point: All of this is legislating on 
appropriations bills. All of that is possible under the rules because 
of a ruling that occurred a few years ago which allows this sort of 
legislating on appropriations bills. I have been heckled in the past: 
``We ought to change that,'' on the Democratic side and on the 
Republican side. And I think we should.
  People on both sides of the aisle might say: Wait a minute, that is 
the only way I can get my legislation considered. Look, that is why we 
have authorization bills. We--both sides--abuse this. We ought to stop 
it. That is what contributes to the difficulty we have in passing 
appropriations bills now every year, because we are busy legislating 
things on appropriations bills that we might not be able to get through 
a committee or might not be able to get on an authorization bill.
  Somebody said: Well, how would we do it? A novel idea: Go back and do 
it the way we always did it, on authorization bills, not on 
appropriations bills. I think you could argue back and forth whether 
that benefits the majority or the minority. I do not think we ought to 
get into that on something such as this. It is the right thing to do in 
eliminating this procedure. We should not be having legislation, a 
whole bill, put on the agriculture appropriations bill.
  So that is sort of where we are.
  I propose we go forward and try to get some indication of where the 
votes are, have some debate on the point of order or legislation on 
appropriations bills, have the debate on the Feinstein amendment, have 
some debate on the Frist amendment, and then let's have some votes and 
see where we are. But I think we need to make up our minds: Are we just 
going to say no or are we going to move forward?
  We could still do a lot of work next week that would be in the 
people's interests. Last week we passed six bills and made a big start 
on State Department authorization. We can do that next week. We could 
go out next week having passed three or four appropriations bills, 
perhaps the intelligence authorization bill, and several nominations.
  We are now beginning to have some nominations come on to the calendar 
out of the Commerce Committee and out of the Judiciary Committee and 
out of the Foreign Relations Committee. In fact, I saw we had about 8 
or 10 that came on last night, and more have come on. We could wind up 
with a burst of activity that would serve the Senate well. It would 
serve the American people well.
  Quite frankly, Senator Daschle and I like to do that, because we 
agreed a long time ago, when you do your work, everybody wins, but when 
you dig in and just find ways to continue the Molotov minuet and say 
no, everybody loses.
  So I think we ought to move forward. I urge my colleagues on the 
Democratic side to consider how we can get this done. Let's get this 
agreement worked out, and let's move on with these very important 
appropriations bills.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do have some things I need to do. I know 
Senator Daschle would like to respond.
  Does the Senator wish to ask a question or to respond on his own time 
or I should just yield and keep the floor and wait for you to finish?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, certainly the majority leader can----
  Mr. LOTT. I do have some work I need to do.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I do want to respond. If you want to finish --go ahead.
  Mr. LOTT. Why don't I do this because I think it would be more 
appropriate. Let me just yield to Senator Daschle so he can respond. 
When he finishes, I will go back and do this procedural work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the majority leader.
  Mr. President, let me respond to a number of the comments made by the 
distinguished majority leader.
  He certainly is right in that we have attempted to work our way 
through this for some time now. But I will say, if this is a Molotov 
minuet, there is only one side dancing. And in the Senate, both sides 
have to dance to make progress. In the Senate, if we are going to have 
a dance, it takes both sides to make it work. We are getting shut out.
  That is what this is about. We are shut out. We want to see progress, 
and there are colleagues on the other side who want to continue to shut 
us out. We are left with no recourse. We will minuet with anybody so 
long as there is somebody there to dance with.
  Let me just talk about the lament of our distinguished majority 
leader that this is an amendment to an unrelated bill. Just last week, 
Senator Murkowski offered the Glacier Bay legislation to the steel 
bill, and I listened very carefully to see if there was one Senator on 
the other side who would object to bringing up a glacier amendment on a 
steel bill. It was a cold steel bill, but it was not a glacier bill.

[[Page 14247]]

  Yet there we were, unrelated legislation offered with no objection.
  The majority leader understandably talked about the ruling on the 
energy appropriations supplemental. Just for the Record, he made 
mention that it was a ruling. It actually wasn't a ruling. It was the 
majority overturning the ruling. Fifty-four Republicans, actually 57 
people, but 54 Republicans, 100 percent of the Republican caucus, 
overruled the Chair when the Chair ruled, on March 16, 1995, that you 
couldn't legislate on appropriations. One hundred percent of the 
Republican caucus said: Yes, we can, and we are going to say to you, 
Mr. President, we are overruling you.
  Now we hear our colleagues saying: Oh, my goodness, we are 
legislating on appropriations.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and the 
rollcall be printed for the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Senate Voting Record--No. 107

             [104th Congress, 1st Session, March 16, 1995]

              Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, 1995

                          (Endangered Species)

                           Amendment No.: 336

       Bill No.: H.R. 889.
       Title: ``Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act, 
     1995.''
       Subject: Hutchison appeal of the Chair ruling that the 
     Hutchison, et al., amendment, which rescinds $1.5 million 
     from amounts appropriated for the Fish and Wildlife Service 
     to make determinations regarding whether a species is 
     threatened or endangered, and whether a habitat is a critical 
     habitat under the Endangered Species Act; prohibits any 
     remaining funds designated for Resource Management, under the 
     Fish and Wildlife Service, from being used to make a final 
     determination that a species is threatened or endangered, or 
     that a habitat constitutes a critical habitat; and provides 
     that any court order requiring the Fish and Wildlife Service 
     to make determinations relating to species or habitat by a 
     date certain, shall not apply to the Service if funds are not 
     available to make those determinations by the date required 
     in the court order, violates Rule XVI of the Standing Rules 
     of the Senate. (Subsequently, the amendment was agreed to by 
     voice vote. See also Vote No. 106.)
       Note: Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate 
     prohibits the inclusion of new or general legislation in any 
     appropriations bill. H.R. 889: Vote Nos. 101-103, 105-108.
       Result: Decision of Chair not sustained.

                               Yeas (42)

                         Democrats (42 or 93%)

       Akaka, Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Boxer, Breaux, Bryan, 
     Bumpers, Byrd, Daschle, Dodd, Exon, Feingold, Feinstein, 
     Ford, Glenn, Graham, Harkin, Heflin, Inouye, Johnston, 
     Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, 
     Lieberman, Mikulski, Moseley-Braun, Moynihan, Murray, Nunn, 
     Pell, Pryor, Reid, Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Simon, 
     Wellstone.

                         Republicans (0 or 0%)

       None.

                               Nays (57)

                          Democrats (3 or 7%)

       Conrad, Dorgan, Hollings.

                        Republicans (54 or 100%)

       Abraham, Ashcroft, Bennett, Bond, Brown, Burns, Campbell, 
     Chafee, Coats, Cochran, Cohen, Coverdell, Craig, D'Amato, 
     DeWine, Dole, Domenici, Faircloth, Frist, Gorton, Gramm, 
     Grams, Grassley, Gregg, Hatch, Hatfield, Helms, Hutchison, 
     Inhofe, Jeffords, Kassebaum, Kempthorne, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, 
     Mack, McCain, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, 
     Pressler, Roth, Santorum, Shelby, Simpson, Smith, Snowe, 
     Specter, Stevens, Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond, Warner.

                             Not Voting (1)

                             Democrats (1)

       Bradley (necessarily absent)

                            Republicans (0)

       None.

                           Analysis of Issue

                             Party Cohesion

       Democrats--93%
       Republicans--100%

                 Measure of Party Support on this Vote

                                For (42)

       Democrats--42 or 100%
       Republicans--0 or 0%

                              Against (57)

       Democrats--3 or 5%
       Republicans--54 or 95%

  Mr. DASCHLE. The majority leader has also said this is a good bill; 
the Republican Patients' Bill of Rights is a good bill. We don't think 
so. But if it is such a good bill, what is wrong with just putting it 
before the Senate and having a good debate about a good bill? That is 
what we are supposed to do here. We are supposed to put legislation 
down and have at it.
  I have lamented several times that there are those in this Chamber 
who believe that a good bill ought to be accompanied by a good rule. 
The rule is, we will allow amendments if we like them. If you want that 
kind of an environment, run for the House of Representatives because 
they have all kinds of rules like that. If you want to do it the way we 
do it here, have at it. Let's have some good debate. Let's not say we 
are going to have to approve every amendment offered by our colleagues 
prior to the time we even agree to go to the bill. If it is a good 
bill, it ought to have a good debate.
  The majority leader also read the unanimous consent request 
agreement. I will not in any way denigrate the effort that the majority 
leader has made to try to accommodate both sides. He has worked 
diligently to make that happen. But let me just explain what is wrong 
with that agreement as we see it.
  First of all, it requires an end date. That, perhaps, is the most 
significant concern we have all had. I dare ask, could somebody come 
back and tell me when was the last time we said we will take up a bill 
with an absolute guarantee that we will have an end date? We haven't 
even talked about--and it is murky--whether we are talking about final 
passage. I think we are, but we haven't agreed to that. There is just 
an end date. We would have to quit debating this at a time certain.
  Well, in a body such as this, when we agree to consideration of a 
bill without any other rules than that, if we just say we are going to 
end this debate at a time certain, guess what happens? Anybody can take 
the floor and monopolize the floor for days, if they want to. That is 
the first problem.
  The second problem is, as the distinguished majority leader 
indicated, under this proposal, each amendment would have 2 hours. That 
is right. He also noted that each amendment would have 2 second-
degrees, subject to 2 hours. By my calculation, sophisticated as it is, 
that is 6 hours per amendment. One first-degree, 2 second-degrees, 2 
times 3 is 6. If the majority leader were good enough to allow the 
Senate to go for 12 hours, that means 2 amendments per day. There are 3 
days. Two amendments per day, 2 times 3, ironically, once again, you 
get 6. It is amazing how this math works out. It always comes down to 
6. That is our problem.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Let me finish, and I will be happy to yield.
  Six amendments. I know our colleagues on the other side say: 
Certainly, we wouldn't use all that time.
  With that end date, who knows? As difficult as it has been to bring 
up amendments with second-degrees and with tabling motions, who knows 
how long and how many amendments we will be able to bring up. That is 
the problem.
  Here are the concessions we have made in this agreement. In the 
Senate, you are able to bring up a farm bill on a peace treaty. But we 
said on this bill it has to be relevant. We will agree to relevancy. We 
said we may even agree to an end date.
  Now, the majority says: We also are insisting, and it was in this 
agreement, we are insisting that you never talk about the Patients' 
Bill of Rights until the next millennium. That is in here. What it says 
is, you can't bring it up in this entire Congress, but this entire 
Congress goes into the next millennium. So it is a gag rule until the 
next millennium on the Patients' Bill of Rights.
  Now, they did change it. They would acknowledge a willingness to 
change it to the end of this session, but we couldn't talk about it 
anymore this session.
  Then, of course, we have the question of how we resolve the 
outstanding issues on amendments. I have suggested that we leave it to 
the two leaders to offer amendments without debate at the end. Say we 
run up to the end of the time and somebody unfortunately has used all 
of the time and we are stuck here with 20 amendments and we have only 
debated one, let's take

[[Page 14248]]

the worst case scenario. I am stuck here with my colleagues demanding 
that I protect them, and I have got 19 amendments in my hands. I said: 
At least let us have a vote on that. No debate; we will just have a 
vote. They wouldn't agree with that. No debate. No votes.
  Then the ultimate power the majority has are the two things that the 
majority leader made reference to. The first is the power of the 
second-degree. Anything we lay down, they get to second-degree. And 
because they have 55 votes, usually they win. Second-degrees are 
powerful, and they have them. We have agreed to that.
  The other thing they have, probably the most powerful of all, is the 
majority leader's right of first recognition. Let's assume we have 
worked through all of this and we have won more than our share of 
amendments. Well, the majority leader, as is his right--and it will 
certainly be my right when we are in the majority--has the opportunity 
to say at the end: Well, I am going to lay down an amendment to wipe 
out everything we have done. That is my right as a majority leader. I 
am going to offer an amendment to wipe it all out.
  He can do that, and that is in this agreement.
  I must say, I have to ask, what are they afraid of? What is it about 
these amendments they don't want to vote on? What is it about a 
procedure that is so extraordinary if all we want to do is be able to 
offer the amendments and we will agree with most of everything that has 
been listed here?
  I can't figure it out, but that is for them to share with the rest of 
us.
  We have tried. I think my colleagues have given me a pretty clear 
indication where they are, as a result of a caucus this afternoon. They 
weren't very wild about this. I can understand why. We have 48 
amendments listed here that my colleagues have all said are important 
and ought to be determined in debate and in a vote.
  There are those on the other side who say: We just don't have time. 
Well, we had time to take up 159 amendments on the defense 
authorization bill. We had time to bring up 67 amendments on the 
defense appropriations bill. We had time to bring up 104 amendments on 
the budget resolution. We had time to bring up 66 amendments on the 
supplemental appropriations. We had time to bring up 38 amendments on 
the Ed-Flex bill. We even had time to bring up and dispose of 26 
amendments on the military bill of rights.
  If we had 26 amendments that were legitimately considered on the 
military bill of rights, how about 20 amendments on the Patients' Bill 
of Rights? That doesn't seem too much to ask to me.
  So here we are. This is an important issue. It isn't going to go 
away. We can do it the easy way or the hard way. It appears that we are 
inclined to do it the hard way. We are prepared to do it any way. We 
will minuet with anybody, but it takes two to tango. We are here to do 
our job.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. 
Nickles.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am really kind of surprised that our 
colleagues have not agreed to the unanimous consent proposal that was 
made last night. I am almost shocked because when you think about it--
let me put it in a little different perspective. We have about 8 weeks 
that we are going to be in session before the end of September, before 
the end of the fiscal year. We have a lot of work to do in that period 
of time.
  The majority leader basically made a proposal that said you can have 
almost all of a week. He said we will have a week off on the July 4th 
break, but then when we come back, you can have Monday, Tuesday, 
Wednesday, and Thursday. That is 4 days not 3. It is 4 days. Under that 
proposal, amendments were limited to 2 hours each.
  That is a major concession. A Senator has a right to have unlimited 
debate on any amendment. Some of these amendments are very significant, 
as I think everybody would agree. Some of the proposals would change 
every single health care plan in America. Some would be quite 
expensive. Some would increase everybody's health care costs across the 
country. So we should not do that lightly. Probably we should not do it 
in 2 hours. If one amendment can increase every health care premium in 
the country by 1 percent--and there are a couple proposals to do that--
we should discuss that because a lot of people are concerned about the 
growing cost of health care.
  Under our proposal we said every amendment would have a 2-hour time 
limit. Granted, every amendment could have two second-degree 
amendments. I would be happy to modify that to one second-degree 
amendment if you think that advances your cause. I would be happy to do 
that. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure it out. I probably 
should not say that; Senator Frist is here. I would not assume a 
second-degree amendment is exactly the same or that close to the first-
degree amendment.
  So, really, if you have 2-hour time limits, if you have one amendment 
and a second-degree, that is two amendments every 4 hours. We don't 
have to have a second-degree on every amendment. So you can have a lot 
of amendments in 4 days, a lot of them, probably to accomplish the 
desires that you have expressed to us, which is that you wanted to have 
16 amendments or 20, or something similar to that. Some of those 
amendments on the list, hopefully, would be agreed upon. I haven't 
looked at the list. I haven't seen the list. But I am sure we can come 
to an agreement. I am also sure you don't have to spend 2 hours on 
every single amendment.
  So my point to my colleagues who have had amendments, and to the 
Senator from California, I mention this: You have the best deal you are 
ever going to get. It takes unanimous consent. A lot of Senators over 
here don't want to give unanimous consent to 2 hours on some of these 
amendments. That was in the proposal. I can't believe you didn't accept 
it, and then you said you want Friday, too. That is regrettable.
  Other people have said, wait a minute, now you are talking about 
making a point of order that you should not legislate on an 
appropriations bill. The Senator from South Dakota says we have done it 
before--a couple weeks ago. We have a real problem. We changed the 
rules by an action on the floor, and a lot of us voted that way and 
said, wait a minute, that has not helped us manage the Senate. We have 
had a rule in the Senate--a rule called rule XVI--which many times is 
abused and ignored; we legislate a lot on appropriations bills. But it 
makes it very difficult to accomplish things. Maybe that rule should be 
reinstated. Both Democrats and Republicans know we should reinstate it. 
Let's leave the authorizing and legislating up to the authorizing 
committees that have the experience and expertise to do so.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield for a question, I noticed that 
the Democratic leader held up a list of the vote and pointed out that 
54 Republicans voted to overrule rule XVI, and that three Democratic 
Members, I guess, voted with us. Then that would mean that the balance 
of the Democratic membership--well into the 40s--voted for maintaining 
rule XVI. As I understand that argument, we are basically saying those 
guys were right.
  Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. I would think the Democratic membership would be happy 
about that and would accept our representation that we made a mistake 
and that we are happy to acknowledge it, and we are going to own up to 
that mistake and join with them and say they were right the first time 
we voted on this and we will be with them this time.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my 
colleague. My point is that rule XVI is not a Democrat rule or a 
Republican rule. It is a rule that has been abused in the past, and it 
ought to be reinstated. It is a rule that would help us do our Nation's 
business and finish our appropriations bills on time. We should leave 
the legislating up to the appropriate authorizing committees. If the 
authorizing

[[Page 14249]]

committees aren't passing legislation we want, maybe we ought to give 
them a jump start. It goes through the appropriate legislative process.
  I compliment Senator Crapo from Idaho, who suggested that we should 
do this. He is right. Many of us suggested that we do this long before 
we came into this dilemma. I told my friend and colleague from 
California this amendment doesn't belong on the agriculture 
appropriations bill. Granted, if you want to try to pass the so-called 
Patients' Bill of Rights, piece by piece, or body part by body part, on 
an agriculture appropriations bill, you are wasting everybody's time. 
There is no way in the world an agriculture appropriations bill is 
going to come back with a Patients' Bill of Rights. Maybe you are 
making political statements, but you are not legislating effectively. 
It is not going to become law.
  The majority leader proposed that we will give you basically a week, 
4 legislative days, with time limits on amendments, which nobody has 
seen on either side. That is a tremendous gift. My colleague from 
Delaware is probably saying: I can't believe they didn't agreed to 
that. Many people on the other side are saying: I can't believe you 
haven't agreed.
  I am not sure that offer is still going to be out here. I am troubled 
by that offer, I tell my colleague from South Dakota. I will tell you, 
there is no way in the world you are going to get another UC after 
today. I will be shocked if you get one that will be this generous in 
time, giving 4 legislative days to this particular issue.
  I think I heard my colleague from South Dakota say: Wait a minute, we 
are being squeezed out and we haven't had the opportunity to bring up 
these amendments.
  I think the majority leader, in making this request yesterday, was 
being very sincere in saying, hey, this is a way we can do this--not 
piece by piece, not on legislative appropriations bills, but basically 
we would give you 4 days beginning on July 12. I think that was a very 
generous offer. I wanted our colleagues to know that. If it is refused, 
then obviously the Patients' Bill of Rights is not going anywhere this 
session.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will just take 2 minutes. I thank my 
colleague for his generosity. I can't tell you how bowled over I am by 
the generosity of the Republican Party for allowing us 2 hours of 
discussion when, as I understood the rules, there is no limit on time, 
assuming you can get the floor. I am truly overwhelmed by that generous 
offer. And my friend from New Hampshire----
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I may respond to that, I thought the best 
way to do it was not have any time limits.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am impressed.
  The second thing I say to my friend from New Hampshire, I find his 
reasoning absolutely fascinating and appealing. It is a little like 
saying, you know, we have been in the candy drawer for the last year, 
but we are going to lock it now because we think you are right; there 
should have been a lock on this drawer the whole time, as they walk 
around fat and happy and 300 pounds. I kind of like that.
  I have been here 27 years, and I have never been as impressed with 
the generosity of the other party as I have been today. I wanted to say 
that and tell you how good it makes me feel.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am glad to yield to the Senator from New 
Hampshire for an appropriate response.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I also find it amusing that the Senator 
from Delaware would resist so aggressively our desire to join with him 
on his original vote when he appears to have been right, and we are 
saying: Gee, you were.
  Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield. Put the candy back in the 
drawer and I would be happy to help.
  Mr. LOTT. I will yield briefly to the Senator from Idaho, who did a 
lot of work on this sort of issue when he was in the House, and he 
believes very strongly we should not be legislating on an 
appropriations bill. He was not here when we made this mistake. He is 
right, I think, that we should find a way to fix it.
  By the way, we are going to have a vote on this issue this summer. I 
am going to find that sooner or later an amendment will come up in a 
way that I am going to appeal the ruling of the Chair, and we are going 
to fix this problem, or at least we are going to vote on it. I believe 
when we get a vote, it will actually pass. I hope some Democrats will 
vote for it. I think we changed the rule XVI inadvertently without 
actually understanding the impact of what we were doing. It has been 
sitting there for 4 or 5 years, and I think it is time that we do 
something about it. Would the Senator from Idaho like to comment on 
that?
  Mr. CRAPO. Yes, I would, very much. Mr. President, this is something 
that I haven't said to the majority leader, but 6 years ago I ran for 
the House of Representatives. In that campaign, I said that one of the 
things I thought ought to be fixed in Congress was that we should stop 
Congress from considering legislation with amendments that have nothing 
to do with the underlying bill. I used to say they should not be 
allowed to put nongermane amendments on legislation. I was told that 
maybe that is too big a word, ``nongermane.''
  I think the American people understand that concept. In fact, the 
American people understand that one of the problems we face in 
Congress--both the House and the Senate--is that when a piece of 
legislation is considered, we don't keep it germane: we don't keep the 
focus of the debate on that legislation. Americans understand that is 
why we run into budget problems.
  They understand that is why we have so many difficult problems in 
Congress. They can't understand why we can't come to agreement. The 
fact is that it is a very sensible commonsense principle that used to 
be in the rules of the Senate--that when a piece of legislation was 
brought before the Senate, an amendment cannot be put on that 
legislation unless the amendment is germane or relevant to that 
legislation itself. It is something that all Americans have an easy 
time understanding. Yet for some reason we have a difficult time here 
in the Senate honoring that basic principle.
  This isn't an issue of who is right on this issue or who is right on 
that issue or who is going to get political advantage out of this rule. 
It is a rule that cuts the same way all the time, and whichever party 
or whichever interest would like to abuse it is the one that is going 
to have to face its consequences. But it is one which is a fair 
principle that will allow us to properly move forward.
  I think it is very critical to recognize that today we are debating 
this issue because we are trying to finish the appropriations process, 
and not run into a problem a few months from now when we are not able 
to get the Government's budgeting process finished, to keep our 
commitment to the American people to keep a balanced budget, and maybe 
eke out an opportunity for some tax relief and yet fulfill our 
responsibilities to the important programs in the Federal Government.
  That is the debate today. Part of that debate we are on today is the 
agriculture appropriations bill. Yet we have stopped the functions of 
the Senate now for several days, and the threat apparently is 
permanently, unless we shift the debate to another very important 
topic--the health care issue.
  No one disagrees that we should debate health care issues. We even 
offered that we can debate those issues. The offer simply has been 
let's do it in an orderly and a principled way. Let's not allow 
amendments that are unrelated to the subject of the underlying 
legislation to be submitted.
  I think it is very interesting that the argument was made just a 
minute ago that, well, you Republicans changed this rule a few years 
ago. I didn't. I wasn't here a few years ago when that vote was taken. 
I was campaigning 6 years ago, so that shouldn't be the way this Senate 
should operate, and it shouldn't be the way the House of 
Representatives operates. I have taken that position every session that 
I have

[[Page 14250]]

been in this Congress. I take that position here today. We have to take 
the strong position on principles.
  I think the American people will recognize that, and they know a lot 
of politics is being played as we debate here today. But if we will 
make our decisions on principles by which the American people should be 
governed, and by which this House of our Congress should be governed, 
and then let those principles work their way out as the various 
interests try to play politics on the issues, then at least we will 
know that the process is fair. That is what this Senate ought to do and 
what it ought to return to.
  I think it is time for us to resolve this impasse by returning to the 
kind of governing principles that we should follow as a Senate.
  I thank the majority leader for yielding and giving me this 
opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have some procedures I would like to go 
through, and then we will put in a time for morning business, and then 
Senators can engage on their own.
  I think we should go on with the people's business of passing our 
appropriations bills.
  I will continue to work with Senator Daschle and all of those who are 
interested in trying to see if we can come up with some agreement to 
handle a Patients' Bill of Rights separately and aside from the 
appropriations bills in a specified period of time and an acceptable 
way. That is obviously not easy. But we have found solutions to 
complicated problems before. Hopefully, we can find one this time.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, so we can get a focus on where the problem 
is, and so everybody will understand that what is being affected here 
is the regular appropriations process, I send a cloture motion to the 
desk to the pending agriculture appropriations bill.
  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, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the agriculture 
     appropriations bill:
         Senators Trent Lott, Thad Cochran, Ben Nighthorse 
           Campbell, Susan M. Collins, Craig Thomas, Mike Crapo, 
           Kay Bailey Hutchison, Robert F. Bennett, Larry E. 
           Craig, Connie Mack, Charles E. Grassley, Christopher S. 
           Bond, Richard C. Shelby, Tim Hutchinson, Ted Stevens, 
           and Mike Enzi.

                          ____________________