[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17423-17424]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--RULE XVI

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have consulted with the Democratic leader 
on the unanimous-consent request I am fixing to propound. I think it is 
a reasonable solution to deal with a couple of very important issues.
  I ask unanimous consent when the Senate convenes on Monday, July 26, 
it proceed to an original resolution, to be placed on the calendar by 
the majority leader immediately following the acceptance of this 
agreement, and the resolution be considered under the following 
restraints:
  That the resolution be limited to 3 hours for each leader or his 
designee;

[[Page 17424]]

that there be one amendment in order for the Democratic leader 
regarding restoring the point of order on exceeding the scope of 
conference, which debate time shall come out of the resolution time; 
and that final adoption of the resolution must occur prior to close of 
business of the Senate on Monday, July 26; Provided further that when 
the Senate considers the agricultural disaster relief amendment to be 
offered by Senator Daschle, or his designee, to the agriculture 
appropriations bill, no rule XVI point of order lie against the 
amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, I tried to listen to all 
of the verbiage. I understand that Senator Daschle or his designee 
would be allowed to offer the emergency agriculture package without any 
rule XVI, but to what bill? To what measure would the Democratic leader 
be permitted to offer that?
  Mr. LOTT. To the agricultural appropriations bill.
  Mr. HARKIN. Agricultural appropriations. And that will come up before 
we leave in August?
  Mr. LOTT. Right.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, I ask the leader a 
question. I assume a second-degree amendment to the first-degree 
concerning agriculture would be out of order under rule XVI?
  Mr. LOTT. Amendments thereto would have to be protected in the same 
way in order for that to go forward. We can't have one amendment in 
order and not have amendments thereto be in order also.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will have to object.
  Mr. LOTT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, now I understand the reservation that the 
Senator from Wisconsin has, and we can clarify that.
  Let me read the last paragraph again. I think it will make it clear:
  Provided that when the Senate considers the agricultural disaster 
relief amendment to be offered by Senator Daschle, or his designee, to 
the agricultural appropriations bill, no rule XVI point of order lie 
against the amendment or amendments thereto relating to the same 
subject.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could, this just provides for a fair 
opportunity for debate on the restoration of the rule XVI issue that we 
talked about earlier today which would allow Members to have a debate 
on that and a vote. If rule XVI is put back into place, of course, 
legislation on appropriations bills will be limited, unless there is a 
rule by the Chair and it gets 51 votes.
  We also have to debate and vote on the question of scope issues 
coming back out of conference.
  When we do bring up agriculture appropriations before the August 
recess, there will be one amendment relating to disaster relief by 
Senator Daschle or his designee, and we will have an opportunity to 
have our amendment on the same subject. It will not relate to dairy, I 
make that clear.

                          ____________________