[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14561-14563]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me say first Senator Daschle and I have 
labored long and hard to come to an agreement on a unanimous-consent 
procedure to deal with the Patients' Bill of Rights issue, 
appropriations bills, and nominations, and it still takes an awful lot 
of good faith. We have to work together. We have to have some trust. We 
have to give the benefit of the doubt to the leaders. Also, in the 
Senate we have to be prepared to deal with action. We are trying to 
find a way to deal fairly with the appropriations bills and with the 
Patients' Bill of Rights.
  I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader or his designee, 
introduce the underlying health care bill and it be placed on the 
calendar by 12 noon on Thursday, July 8, and the bill 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 on Thursday, July 
15, and the bill be subject to the following agreement:
  That the bill be limited to 3 hours of debate, to be equally divided 
in the usual form, that all amendments in order to the bill be relevant 
to the subject of amendment Nos. 702, 703, the introduced bill or 
health care tax cuts, and all first degree amendments be offered in an 
alternating fashion with Senator Daschle to offer the initial first 
degree amendment and all first- and second-degree amendments be limited 
to 100 minutes each, to be equally divided in the usual form. I further 
ask consent that second-degree amendments be limited to one second-
degree amendment per side, per party, 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, should the 
bill, upon passage, contain any revenue blue slip matter, the bill 
remain at the desk and that when the Senate receives the house 
companion bill, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, all 
after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of the Senate bill 
that was passed be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill as amended be 
passed, the Senate insist on its amendment and request a conference 
with the House, all without any intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I want to announce at this time that the minority leader, 
Senator Daschle, and I have discussed several times how we would 
proceed with this matter once we have had this period of time for 
debate and votes on and in relation to the Patients' Bill of Rights.
  Senator Daschle has given me his assurance that although this 
agreement will not prohibit Members from offering this issue or an 
amendment related to this issue again in the session, he does not 
expect a need to offer this issue again, presuming the normal 
legislative process is followed.
  In other words, if we should complete an action and it goes to 
conference, if it languishes there or does not come back, this 
arrangement would not prohibit some amendment from being offered at 
some subsequent point.
  I can fairly say that the minority leader is willing to say this 
issue will have had due consideration after these 4 days of debate, and 
at the conclusion of this week we would not feel the need to readdress 
it.
  Finally, I announce to the Senate, following this agreement, the two 
leaders have jointly agreed to pass three to five of the remaining 
appropriations bills available prior to the Fourth of July recess. This 
will take a good bit of cooperation, too.
  The top priority of the appropriations bills are likely in the 
following order: foreign operations, D.C., Treasury-Postal Service, and 
the pending agriculture appropriations bill. We will work to see what 
the prospects are and time to be consumed for Transportation, State-
Justice-Commerce, or Interior.
  I have already discussed this matter twice this afternoon with the 
chairman of the committee. I believe he is working with Senator Byrd to 
try to identify the bills we could most likely move in this remaining 
time, and how that can be done--time agreements, if necessary--but we 
will have to work together. I believe we can move at least three, and 
hopefully four, of these bills.

[[Page 14562]]

  In light of this agreement, I now ask consent that the pending two 
amendments to the agricultural appropriations bill be withdrawn.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I 
certainly won't, I want to reserve my comments on the overall agreement 
until after the majority leader has completed his unanimous consent 
request, which has one more piece.
  Let me say in regard to the comments made by the majority leader 
about our assurances, as he has indicated, that we would not pursue 
this matter further this year. He used the right phrase--``if the 
normal legislative process'' is followed.
  Obviously, we expect the normal legislative process to be one which 
will allow a good debate on an array of amendments, first and second-
degrees with limits on time, and that we will have completed an 
adequate number of those amendments.
  This issue, of course, is the Patients' Bill of Rights. The agreement 
doesn't preclude debate and amendments on other health-related matters 
unrelated to the Patients' Bill of Rights.
  I am confident that if we have a good debate and if we have an 
opportunity to consider these amendments, there will be no need to 
pursue this matter further this year. The Senate will have spoken.
  I indicated privately in my conversation with Senator Lott that this 
certainly is my expectation, and we will decide at the end of that week 
how well we did. My expectation is the normal legislative process will 
be followed.
  I have no objection.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to 
object, do I understand from the leaders we would have the normal kind 
of days that we have traditionally had in terms of the workings of the 
Senate? If the majority leader could give some indication of that.
  Mr. LOTT. It is my intent to move forward in the normal fashion that 
we deal with these legislative days. Of course, we always take into 
consideration conflicts that one party or the other may have. There 
will be no intent to have short days. We intend to have long days so we 
can have adequate discussion.
  Let me express my appreciation to Senator Nickles for the amount of 
time and effort he has put into all of this. He is very knowledgeable 
on the substance of the Patients' Bill of Rights issue.
  There are many Senators on both sides of the aisle who prefer to do 
this another way. It has taken restraint on both sides. I know Senator 
Nickles still has concerns about it, but he has been willing to work 
with us to come up with an agreement to move forward. I know that 
applies to Senator Kennedy also.
  I also have to thank Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl, managers of 
this agriculture appropriations bill, around whose neck this issue has 
been attached for the last week. They have been very patient and 
understanding.
  I hope tomorrow we will be prepared to move forward aggressively on a 
number of these appropriations bills--the three I mentioned at the top 
or agriculture or one of the others.
  I will be talking to the ranking member and Senator Daschle about the 
appropriations we can move forward with first.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REED. Reserving the right to object, I do not intend to object, 
but I want to echo a comment of the Democratic leader. That presumption 
is that this flexible process will allow a sufficient number of 
amendments to come to the floor, that it will not be a process where 
one or two amendments are brought up and then through a series of 
extended second-degree amendments delayed?
  Mr. LOTT. The agreement wouldn't allow for that.
  Mr. REED. We are really talking about a procedure where we could 
fully ventilate all the issues--and there are numerous issues that are 
inherent in this bill. I hope that is the spirit and the actuality of 
the agreement.
  Mr. LOTT. I think there will be full opportunity to talk about the 
substance of the issue and the bills pending, and amendments would be 
offered. I think after 2 or 3 days on this issue, most of the issues 
that need to be debated--or all of the issues--will have been 
addressed.
  Senator Daschle and I will have talked back and forth about that. I 
think once we have some critical debate and some critical amendments, 
the Members will think they have had the opportunity to be heard and 
will have made their points.
  So I think there is going to be plenty of time here. It doesn't 
specify amendments. It doesn't specify a maximum or a minimum. There 
are some time limitations, which is the orderly way to do business 
around here, but there is not going to be any effort to have two or 
three amendments and then forestall everything else. You could not do 
it under this arrangement.
  Mr. REED. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REED. I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the majority leader's 
request?
  Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, let me clarify something 
with the majority leader. The majority leader made a request, or we 
discussed one on Thursday evening, I think, at 6:30. The major 
difference between this request and the one on Thursday is, No. 1, the 
limit on debate on the bill is limited to 3 hours and there was not a 
time limit?
  Mr. LOTT. There was not a time limit on the earlier bill in the 
general debate in the earlier unanimous consent. There is 3 hours in 
this unanimous consent. Instead of the 2 hours on the first- and 
second-degree amendments, 2 hours each, there is 100 minutes on each 
one of them.
  Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate that. For further clarification, I 
understand why the minority leader asked for that, but I will state--I 
stated it on the floor--it was never anyone's intention on this side, 
to my knowledge, to filibuster the bill. I do think 3 hours is a very 
limited time. I do think it is possible, though, you can discuss the 
bill during amendment time, so I am not going to object.
  Then the other major change was a reduction from 120 minutes to 100 
minutes. That, of course, is to facilitate a greater number of 
amendments and that is understandable as well. So I have no objection.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank Senator Nickles again for his cooperation. I do 
think as we go forward it is very likely some of these amendments will 
not take the full time. I assume some of them may even be agreed to by 
both sides. I also think it is possible we might be going along with 
pretty hot debate and Senators may want a little extra time. Usually, 
we try to accommodate each other, if there really is a need for it, on 
both sides of the aisle. I am not advocating it now. I think we could 
nitpick it to death, but I think we have come about as close as we 
possibly can.
  I do have two other announcements I would like to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the majority leader's 
request? Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Nominations

  Mr. LOTT. As we have discussed, it is my intention to work to clear 
the Executive Calendar. We now have a number of nominations on the 
calendar, including a long list of military nominations and the nominee 
to be Secretary of Treasury. We may even have other nominees coming on 
the calendar. I understand the Finance Committee reported three more 
nominations today, including the Under Secretary of Treasury. We have 
some judicial nominations. We will begin the process tomorrow of 
hotlining those nominations. We will be moving them along as we go 
forward on this process of getting appropriations done.
  Again, our purpose is to work together and do the people's business 
in the next 2\1/2\ days, and that will include clearing nominations. 
Some of them, of course, may hit a snag for one reason or another, but 
we will certainly work on that.

[[Page 14563]]

  The other thing is we have talked on both sides of the aisle about 
how someday we needed to go back and correct a situation that developed 
a few years ago with regard to rule XVI so that we can preserve the 
integrity of the appropriations and the authorization process. Senator 
Daschle and I have talked about this. We want to reach a point where he 
and I together--not when one side or the other seizes the opportunity, 
but at the earliest opportunity, he and I will stand together to 
correct what I think was a mistake. And it originated on our side of 
the aisle. I acknowledge that. I was part of the problem. But I think 
for the future sanctity of the appropriations process and to make the 
authorization committees really work as they should, we should have 
that point of order reinstated. Senator Daschle has indicated he would 
work with me on that. I would like it to be totally a bipartisan 
effort. I know our ranking member and the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee would like to do that, too. So I thank him for 
his cooperation on this unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to publicly commend the majority 
leader for the effort he has made over the last several days to find a 
way to resolve this impasse. I believe this is a win-win. I think only 
through his persistence and willingness to consider a lot of different 
options were we able to reach this point. I am grateful to him and 
have, once again, enjoyed the opportunity to resolve what has been a 
very significant procedural difficulty for us all.
  I also want to thank the distinguished senior Senator from 
Massachusetts for the outstanding job he has done providing us real 
leadership on this issue, as he does on so many issues relating to 
health and education.
  I also thank the assistant Republican leader as well.
  I believe this is a good agreement any way one looks at it. It 
provides us with the opportunity to have a good debate. It provides us 
with the opportunity to have a series of amendments. It certainly 
provides us with the focus that we have been looking for with regard to 
the Patients' Bill of Rights. This is a very good agreement, agreed to, 
I think, with the direct involvement of a lot of people. So we are 
grateful.
  The majority leader mentioned a couple of other matters, one having 
to do with his desire to work full days. He has assured me we will work 
9- to 12-hour days that week we come back because he recognizes the 
importance of giving this issue a full opportunity for debate. I 
appreciate his commitment in that regard.
  I also share his concern about how we might make the appropriations 
process work better. Democrats were opposed, of course, to the 
overruling of the Chair at the time it occurred. To take it back would 
be consistent with the position we took when the vote was taken a few 
years back. So I do intend to work with him to find a way to resolve 
this matter. That also, of course, is assuming we will have 
opportunities--I know we have talked about this--opportunities to have 
good debates with amendments on authorization bills. This will only 
work if we have the regular order on authorization bills. We certainly 
have to be sure that we have an opportunity on those occasions when 
authorization bills are presented to have a good debate with amendments 
as we have had now on a couple of bills this year.
  Again, I think this is a good agreement. I appreciate the cooperation 
of everybody but in particular the leadership of the majority leader 
and Senator Kennedy and others on our side.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in commending the two leaders for 
propounding this unanimous consent request. These past days have been 
hard fought in establishing a procedure which would be fair and permit 
the opportunity for the Senate to debate fully some of the important 
measures I think are included in the Patients' Bill of Rights. I think 
the leaders have outlined a process and the Senate has been willing to 
accept that procedure. Both leaders do deserve credit.
  I want to underscore what both leaders have said; that is, we are 
going into this whole process on the basis of good faith. I join with 
the Senator from South Dakota in feeling we can do the business of the 
Senate on this issue in that time. But it is also preserved, if for 
some reason there is not the kind of constructive and positive attitude 
we have heard this evening, that there is going to be the denial of 
that opportunity, that rights will be reserved for Members to raise 
these issues at another time. I am hopeful we can follow what has been 
outlined here and in good faith have a full and fair debate on these 
issues.
  The real fireworks are going to be after the Fourth of July this 
year. I look forward to engaging in this debate.
  I again thank my leader and the majority leader for moving this whole 
extremely important piece of legislation to the point where it will be 
center stage in the Senate. I thank the leader for his efforts.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to make one further 
announcement. I have been communicating, as I said, with the chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee. In the wrapup, we will announce that 
in the morning we will go to one of the appropriations bills, perhaps 
D.C. or foreign ops. We will need to confer with a lot of different 
people. But when we get the time agreement, we will go to one of those.
  In view of the work that has gone on, I will announce at this time 
there will be no further rollcall votes tonight, but Members should 
expect votes to occur in the morning and throughout the day.
  Mr. President, one final announcement: We are going to pursue the 
possibility of laying down one of the appropriations bills tonight so 
we would have it pending. I want Members to be aware of that, but there 
still would not be any more recorded votes.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  (The remarks of Mr. Stevens pertaining to the introduction of S. 1301 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________