Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today I rise to commemorate the second anniversary of National Tartan Day. I will be assisting those who do not have on their plaids, their Tartans, during the day to make sure you have one for your lapel--if not around your neck. We welcome our special guest chaplain in the Senate, the Right Reverend John Cairns, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. It is my understanding that the office of Moderator is the highest honor that the Church of Scotland can bestow on a minister. The Moderator has had a distinguished career in the ministry, and we are truly privileged to have him as our guest for today's Tartan Day activities. I remind my colleagues that the resolution which established National Tartan Day was Senate Resolution 155. It passed by unanimous consent on March 20th of 1998. As an American of Scottish descent, I appreciate the efforts of individuals, clan organizations, and other groups such as the Scottish Coalition, who were instrumental in generating support for the resolution. These groups have worked diligently to foster national awareness of the important role that Americans of Scottish descent have played in the progress of our country. The purpose of National Tartan Day is to recognize the contributions that Americans of Scottish ancestry have made to our national heritage. It also recognizes the contributions that Americans of Scottish ancestry continue to make to our country. National Tartan Day is an opportunity to pause and reflect on the role Scottish Americans have played in advancing democracy and freedom. They have helped shape this Nation. Their contributions are innumerable. In fact, I myself was surprised to learn that three-fourths of all American Presidents can trace their roots to Scotland. In addition to recognizing Americans of Scottish ancestry, National Tartan Day reminds us of the importance of freedom. It honors those who strived for freedom from an oppressive government on April 6, 1320. It was on that day that the Declaration of Arbroath, the Scottish Declaration of Independence, was signed. This important document served as the model for America's Declaration of Independence. In demanding their independence from England, the men of Arbroath wrote, ``We fight for liberty alone, which no good man loses but with his life.'' These words are applicable today to the heroism of our American veterans and active duty forces who know the precious cost of fighting for liberty. Senate Resolution 155 has served as a catalyst for the many States, cities, and counties that have passed similar resolutions recognizing the important contributions of Scottish Americans. I hail originally from Carroll County, MS, where the neighborhood was made up of Watsons, my mother's family; McCains, Senator John McCain's family; McCalebs, McLeans, McKellys, and the list goes on and on. Most of them were ``Macs.'' I don't know how the Watsons got in there. I thank all of my colleagues who supported this resolution in the past and who helped to remind the world of the stand for liberty taken on April 6--almost 700 years ago--in Arbroath, Scotland. A call for liberty which still echoes through our history and the history of many nations across the globe. It has been my hope that this annual event will grow in prominence each year, similar to St. Patrick's Day and Columbus Day, and the ceremonies and activities taking place today and over the next few days demonstrate that these goals are coming to fruition. I believe April 6 can also serve as a day to recognize those nations that have not achieved the principles of freedom which we hold dear. The example of the Scotsmen at Arbroath--their courage--their desire for freedom-- serves as a beacon to countries still striving for liberty today.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT. I think that is obviously a good suggestion. Let me add to this, if I could, Mr. President, that we are going to go forward with two more amendments tonight, one on each side--the Bond amendment on our side and the Reed amendment on their side. After that, we are going to stop for tonight because we still have a large number of amendments that have not been able to be worked through. I am going to ask the managers on both sides to get all these amendments lined up and to get the first five on each side ready for in the morning so we won't have to wait until we come in. Also, we will come in at 9 o'clock so we can get an early as possible start. Some would like to be able to go home or do commitments as early as possible. But as it now stands, because of the number of amendments and the fact that we haven't had an opportunity to line up all the amendments in order, the managers requested we do it this way. I emphasize that as soon as we finish the votes on amendments that are offered, and a vote is required, when we finish those, we will be through. So you may want to take that into consideration as to whether or not you insist on your amendment tomorrow. We can finish at 10 or 11 o'clock, or 12, but we need to go ahead and complete that. Having said that, I am looking that way, but I could more easily be looking our way. A lot of amendments are still pending on both sides that really could be handled in some other way. I hope Senators will consider doing that. I thank the managers for the time they spent and the cooperation we have been getting from Senator Daschle and Senator Reid doing his usual good job. But our managers need this time tonight and early in the morning to start getting amendments racked up so we can vote on the first five.

Mr. LOTT. I will accept that suggestion.

Mr. LOTT. We can do that. It requires that Senators stay here and that we stay attentive and say ``turn it in.'' We are trying to be considerate of both sides. Obviously, we need to stop. If we get unanimous consent for it to be 10 minutes, we will stop it. I amend the UC so that we may have 2 minutes equally divided on each amendment and that this vote and the next vote be 10 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT. With that, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2913 (Purpose: To express the sense of Senate against the Federal funding of smoke shops)

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to recognize and say farewell to an outstanding Air Force officer and former Marine, Brigadier General Ernest R. Webster, upon his retirement from the Air Force after more than thirty-two years of commissioned service. Throughout his career, Brigadier General Webster has served with distinction, and it is my privilege to recognize his many accomplishments and to commend him for the superb service he has provided the Air Force and our Nation. General Webster is a native of my home State, having been born in Anguilla, Mississippi. He entered the United States Marine Corps Officer Candidate School Quantico, Virginia in 1967. After successfully qualifying as a Marine aviator, he served as a pilot and intelligence officer for the Naval Special Landing Forces in the Caribbean region. He served his nation as an aviator in Southeast Asia while stationed with the 1st Marine Air Wing in the Republic of Vietnam. General Webster was an aircraft maintenance officer and test pilot at New River, North Carolina prior to his transfer into the United States Air Force in January 1972. After attending Maintenance Officer School at Chanute Air Force Base, Illinois, he was assigned to Homestead Air Force Base, Florida, where he was chief of maintenance, flight examiner, chief of safety, and operations officer for the 301st Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron. As a major, he was assigned to Sheppard and Little Rock Air Force Bases for flight training where he mastered the C-130 Hercules weapon system. His next assignment was chief of safety for the 920th Weather Reconnaissance Group at Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Mississippi. He then moved to March Air Force Base, California, serving as deputy commander for operations at the 303rd Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron. He was promoted to colonel in 1985. During that same year, Colonel Webster took command of the 907th Tactical Airlift Group, Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base, in Ohio. He was promoted to deputy chief of staff for operations, Headquarters 14th Air Force, Dobbins Air Force Base, Headquarters Air Force Reserve, to serve as assistant deputy chief of staff for operations where he played a critical role in the call-up of thousands of Air Force reserve members to Southwest Asia during Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm. He then moved to Duke Field, Florida, to assume command of the 919th Special Operations Wing where he directed critical tactical operations. In 1994 he assumed command of the 403rd Wing at Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi. Colonel Webster was promoted to Brigadier General in 1995. General Webster's accomplishments are many. Units under his command received the Outstanding Unit Award in three of the five years he was in command. His ``Flying Jennies'' of the 815th Airlift Squadron accomplished Denton Amendment humanitarian missions in Honduras, Argentina, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Russia, and many other areas struck by disaster. His ``Hurricane Hunters'' of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron were world-famous for providing critical hurricane information to residents of coastal areas in the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. During his stellar career, General Webster has served the United States Marine Corps, the United States Air Force, and our great Nation with excellence and distinction. He provided exemplary leadership to the best-trained, best-equipped, and best-prepared citizen-airmen force in the history of our Nation. General Webster is a model of leadership and is a living example of our military's dedication to the core values of service before self, integrity first, and excellence in all endeavors. General Webster will retire from the United States Air Force on April 3, 2000 after thirty-two years and six months of dedicated commissioned service. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I wish General Webster blue skies and safe landings. Congratulations on completion of an outstanding and successful career.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business throughout the day with time under the control of Senator Bob Smith, Senator Brownback or his designee, Senator Craig or his designee, and Senator Durbin or his designee. As previously announced, no votes will occur during today's session of the Senate. However, the Senate will begin consideration of the budget resolution at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday morning, and votes can be expected during each day and evening throughout the week. The budget resolution is allowed up to 50 hours of debate, and quite often we have a series of votes at the end of that time. I hope we will not get into a long list of amendments that will require votes right at the very end. It is not a very good way to do business. Last year, after a lot of hard work by Senator Reid and others, we were able to reduce that list to at least a reasonable number. But Senators should be on notice that we will have to spend a good bit of time in session on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, probably going into the night at least Wednesday and Thursday, and that there is a very good chance we will be in on Friday with votes. If we can complete the budget resolution Thursday night, even if it means going late into the night, we will do that; otherwise, we will go into Friday. But we will complete the budget resolution this week so we can move forward with appropriations bills in the appropriations subcommittees beginning next week. Members should also be aware there are a number of important committee markups that will be occurring this week. So we are going to have a very busy time.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today's fuel prices are a daily reminder that America is now at the mercy of foreign oil producing nations. However, before you blame your neighbor's SUV, your local fuel distributors, the oil companies, the automakers, or any of the other usual scapegoats, consider this fact--America is one of the leading energy producing countries in the world. This country has the technology, alternative resources and enough oil to be much more self- sufficient. America does not have to revert back to the practices of the 1970s. This country is faced with a very serious problem. Our nation's farmers and truckers are being hit the hardest--simply because of this Administration's lack of energy policy. In fact, Secretary Richardson recently admitted that this Administration was caught napping when energy prices began to rise. As a result, U.S. crude oil production is down 17 percent since 1993, and consumption is up 14%. America now imports 56% of the oil consumed--compared to 36% imported at the time of the 1973 Arab oil embargo. At this rate the DOE predicts America will be at least 65% dependent on foreign oil by 2020. This Administration has close ties to radical environmentalists-- environmentalists whose strong rhetoric and drastic actions appear more like a new-age religion than a clarion call for good stewardship. It appears that the White House has spent eight years trying to slowly kill our oil, coal, natural gas and even our hydroelectric industries. The Administration began this process in 1993 with an effort to impose a $73 billion five-year energy tax to force the American people away from the use of automobiles and American industries away from their primary energy sources. The Clinton/Gore EPA is still attempting to shut down coal-fired electric generating plants in the South and Midwest. Meanwhile, the Administration is providing no offsets to this. In fact, they have done nothing to increase the availability of domestic natural gas, which is the clean alternative for coal in electric plants. Federal land out West is expected to contain as much as 137 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, but the Administration refuses to allow drilling. Similarly, the Administration will not allow exploration on federal land in Alaska, which is estimated to contain 16 billion barrels of domestic crude oil. None of these facts should be surprising. Vice President Gore has vowed to prohibit future exploration for oil or natural gas on our outer-continental-shelf. He has bluntly stated that the internal combustion engine--the very mechanism which drove America's industrial development and led to the creation of our middle class--is a threat. Maybe that's why he embraces the Kyoto Protocol which would impose staggering consumption restrictions on our economy, while exempting other countries. This treaty is so bad that my colleagues from Gore's own party joined the Senate leadership in voting against it 95 to zero. Al Gore may not depend on the internal combustion engine for his livelihood, but a lot of folks beyond the Washington beltway do. There has to be a solution to this problem. Even without tapping all of America's resources, this country still produces almost half of her fuel needs--far more than most industrial countries. In the long run, a national energy policy that looks at all realistic alternative sources of energy must be developed. Congress must also provide incentives for independent producers to keep their wells pumping. Tax credits for marginal wells will restore our link to existing oil resources, including many in Mississippi. These solutions will be needed someday soon. In the short term, Congress can reduce or temporarily suspend federal fuel taxes, which, along with state excise taxes, account for an average of 40 cents per gallon of gasoline. This would include the ``Gore Fuel Tax'' ram-rodded by the President back in 1993 in a decision so close that Al Gore headed to Capitol Hill to cast the tie- breaking vote. Yes, the Vice-President is the very reason the 4.3 cent gas tax was implemented. Now, as the Administration continues to do nothing to remedy this crisis, the Congress can make a difference. Repealing the Gore Gas Tax immediately, and providing a complete federal fuels tax holiday if prices reach a nationwide average of $2.00, will provide real relief for American consumers at the pump. This can be done for the remainder of this year without touching one cent of the Highway Trust Fund, Social Security, or Medicare. This is a real solution to a very real problem. This reflects the leadership of a number of our colleagues on this important issue. One provision to suspend the diesel fuel tax has been championed by the senior Senator from Colorado, Ben Nighthorse Campbell. A trucker himself, Senator Campbell has led the way on ways to assist truckers and their families who are suffering from the rising price of diesel fuel. He has met with the truckers who have traveled great distances to Washington to make their voices heard. Senator Campbell's unique insights and personal experiences have been helpful to the leadership in crafting this comprehensive gas tax bill. This is not the 1970s. America has better technology, more efficient and cleaner automobiles as well as more energy options. The question is: how long will we hold these options and be held hostage to nations abroad or radical environmentalists at home? America can solve her energy problems but Congress must act in the interests of our entire nation, rather than a select few.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate disagree to the amendments of the House, agree to the request for a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 761) to regulate interstate commerce by electronic means by permitting and encouraging the continued expansion of electronic commerce through the operation of free market forces, and other purposes, The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 761) entitled ``An Act to regulate interstate commerce by electronic means by permitting and encouraging the continued expansion of electronic commerce through the operation of free market forces, and other purposes'', do pass with the following amendments: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, could I inquire about the time remaining?

Mr. LOTT. Is that the only time left before the vote?

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Hatch for a request.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe it was the plan for the leaders to yield the remainder of time. I believe Senator Daschle did that. After all time had been used on both sides, I would be the final speaker, and then we would go to a recorded vote. We indicated we would vote sometime around 4:30. I ask Senator Leahy, are we prepared to yield back time on both sides at the conclusion of my remarks?

Mr. LOTT. That is correct.

Mr. LOTT. He completed his remarks and has yielded the remainder of his time.

Mr. LOTT. Thank you very much.

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I commend those who have been involved in the debate on this very important issue over the past 3 days. It is occasions such as this when I think the Senate quite often rises to the greatest height, but it should, because we are debating very important issues here, symbols of our freedom and our democracy, the Constitution, the flag. I am pleased we have had this discussion. I think the American people want the Senate to act in this area. Now we are prepared to vote. I rise in support of Senate Joint Resolution 14, the constitutional amendment to protect the flag of the United States. What we have before the Senate today is a very simple measure. I have had some discussion with some individuals from outside Washington who asked, how long and how complicated is it? It is not long. It is very simple. It reads in full: The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. That is the entire amendment. During most of the history of our Republic, the provision expressed in this amendment would have been noncontroversial. Indeed, prior to the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Texas v. Johnson in 1989, 48 States and the Federal Government had laws protecting our most basic national symbol, the flag. The Supreme Court's decision in 1989 reflected a fundamental misunderstanding, a misunderstanding of the law, of our history, and of basic common sense. Those who oppose this amendment argue that defacing the flag somehow represents speech that must be protected under the first amendment of the Constitution. I think people have a pretty good understanding of what speech is--at least outside of Washington--and what type of activity is protected under our Constitution. I imagine there are some close situations where there is room for disagreement, obviously, but I don't think that is the case here. We live in a free society where individuals are free to express their views. People can express dissatisfaction with their government, and they do; with the laws, and they do; and even with the flag. They can express those disagreements. While the speech in which some of our fellow citizens choose to engage can at times be repulsive and offensive or even dangerous, we do respect the fundamental right of individuals to express their ideas. No one is suggesting it should be otherwise. In my opinion, burning the flag is not speech, it is conduct of the most offensive kind. Protecting the right of individuals to destroy property has no relation to the question of whether people are free to speak or to write or to campaign or to petition against the leaders of their government. I strongly reject the notion that those who support this amendment lack concern or respect for our traditions of free speech or for the notion that people should be free to criticize their government. This amendment simply will not hinder those basic freedoms. Certainly, Senator Hatch, who has led the debate on this side, and many other Senators who will vote for this have great respect for our traditions of free speech and for the Constitution. But they think this is an issue that rises to the level of being considered as an amendment. This measure does not change the first amendment nor does it alter our historical respect of free speech. It merely restores the original understanding of our Constitution, an understanding that led nearly every State and the Federal Government to maintain for decades laws protecting the flag. As we consider this amendment, it is essential to remind ourselves that our rights, our constitutional guarantees, do not exist in a vacuum. They exist for a reason--namely, to further our great experiment in self-government and a constitutional republic. They exist to help us thrive as individuals and as a nation. The American flag is a sacred, basic, fundamental symbol of our Nation's ideals--the symbol of those goals and values for which we have asked our young men and women to fight and die. It is a symbol that causes citizens to rise in pride and to salute. It is a symbol men and women have followed. It is a symbol men have carried into battle. It does represent those basic tenets in which we believe in this country. Some argue that allowing the desecration of this most vital symbol somehow shows our strength and self-assurance as a nation. I disagree. I think it reflects a perversion of liberty and a misunderstanding of our system of government. Allowing the desecration of our national symbol is not a sign of strength, it is a sign of self-indulgence, as we have in so many areas of our society today, of a nation that does not take seriously the obvious point that our rights coexist with responsibilities and limitations. The flag is unique. When we went to the Moon, we didn't take some other sign of military might, some billboard, some expression of our great wealth. No, instead we planted the flag, the same flag that was raised over Iwo Jima, the same flag we lower to half mast at times of national tragedy, the same flag we drape over the coffin of our American heroes and our veterans. Surely protecting such a symbol is not only consistent with our deepest traditions but essential to preserve the society that has developed and fostered those traditions. I sympathize with those who express concern that a constitutional amendment is an extraordinary event and should not be taken lightly. It never is. We have had some tremendous debates over the years on constitutional amendments. Most of them were defeated, but, on occasion, some have passed and they have proven to be good for the advancement of our country. Had the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution appropriately, we would not be forced to take this serious and unusual step. However, the Supreme Court's failure to act responsibly on this issue leaves us no other means to protect this symbol for which so many Americans have sacrificed their lives and to which they have pledged their sacred honor. Some Members of this body claim that these goals can be accomplished through statute. I can say frankly that I wish it would be so but I don't believe it can be so. Make no mistake, the Supreme Court has stated over and over and over again that its interpretation of the first amendment trumps any statute Congress may pass. If we truly wish to protect the flag--and I know an overwhelming number of Americans do--we have no choice but to vote for a constitutional amendment. There are those who belittle this amendment and our effort to protect the flag. They claim it is too narrow an issue, too small a problem, and that this is an issue not worthy of Congress' attention. I believe this issue is more important than any appropriation or any new set of regulations for it goes to the heart of who we are as a people and what we are as a nation. The United States is different from almost every other nation on Earth. Those who come to America don't share the same language, the same religion, the same ethnicity, the same history, or the same geography. Instead of those tangible similarities, Americans are united by intangibles--by our commitment to certain ideals. One of those ideals is the principle of free speech. But another is the devotion to our country and a commitment to work for its success. By asking Americans to respect the flag, we simply ask them to demonstrate that any protest, criticism, or complaint they may have is made with the best interests of the Nation at heart. The measure before the Senate today furthers that basic and essential principle upon which our Nation was founded. Once again, we are being told that the Senate should reject this, that we know better. Yet look at what has happened. The States have voted overwhelmingly to protect the flag. Forty-eight States had laws protecting it before the Supreme Court decision. Many State legislatures have called upon the Congress to send this amendment to the States. In fact, I think every State legislature has done that. The House of Representatives has passed a flag amendment by a large, overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. Now it is up to the Senate to do what we should. Are we saying we know better than the American people? That we know better than every State legislature in the Nation? That we know better than the House of Representatives? We know better? Why not allow the people, through their State legislatures, to have the final say? Why not pass this amendment, send it to the people, and let them make the final determination? I think they will make the right decision. I think we should work together today on both sides of the aisle to pass this amendment and send it to the people. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Yes.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there is a joint resolution at the desk which was introduced earlier by Senator Coverdell and others, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. LOTT. I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 99, submitted earlier today by me.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have a unanimous-consent request which I have communicated to Senator Daschle. He is here to respond. Before I propound it, I will say this does have to do with the issue of gasoline taxes, and it is an effort to get a process started so we can have a discussion and debate about votes on this issue. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to Calendar No. 473, S. 2285, regarding gas taxes, and that following the reporting of the bill, there be 4 hours equally divided for debate under control of the two leaders or their designees. I further ask unanimous consent that no amendments or motions be in order and, following the use or yielding back of time, the bill be advanced to third reading and passage occur, all without intervening action or debate.