Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would have to object at this time. However, I find some interest in the offer. But I would need to consult with the chairman and the ranking member and make sure all Senators are aware of that. I have a number of Senators who have put me on notice, on both sides of the aisle, that before we agree to a further, or some other, agreement or unanimous consent, they would want to be notified. I know Senator Fitzgerald of Illinois was one of those. I believe one of the New York Senators had notified me to that effect also. So we would need to clear it with a number of people. I personally think the 60-day extension is the way to go and that is why I supported the 60-day extension before we went out. We had not been able to resolve the scheduling problems or resolve the substance of the issues, and while we were doing that, I thought the responsible thing to do was the 60-day extension, and I will continue to advance the need for that. Unfortunately, the House didn't agree with that and they took our 60-day extension and attached their bill to it and sent it back, which, in effect, meant that we did not have the extension because this was the final couple of days of the July recess. There are disagreements on how to resolve the FAA reauthorization. I noted we had a similar disagreement over a very narrow point back in 1996 and the whole session was delayed an extra week because Senator Kennedy had a point that he was concerned about. But we got it done, and I am determined we are going to get it done this time. I must say to the Senator, if I could create an extra 10 days in a month, I would probably do that because it is very hard to accommodate what we must do and accommodate agreements that are reached so we can have not 1 week but 2 weeks of debate on a juvenile justice bill. We find many of our bills are taking longer because Senators offer 100 amendments or a whole variety of things. I am determined to get this done and I will continue to work with the chairmen and the ranking members on both sides of the aisle, in both Houses, and I will be pursuing the 60-day extension. I will get back to the Democratic leadership about how we proceed with that. Again, I note I did talk to Senator Daschle about trying to come up with an agreement on a process where we could deal with this, even with the limited time we have before us.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 274, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of Calendar No. 274, S.J. Res. 33, regarding the actions of President Clinton in granting clemency to the FALN terrorists.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. What is the pending business now, Mr. President? Amendment No. 1603

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk on the pending amendment.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, again, so Senators will know when to expect the vote, it will occur Monday, September 13. So on Monday, with the two cloture votes and a vote or two on Federal judicial nominations, we can expect three or four votes in a stacked sequence on Monday afternoon beginning at 5. I ask unanimous consent that this vote occur immediately following the cloture vote regarding S.J. Res. 33 and the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will note also this is an unusual procedure. Let me just explain. We are on the Interior appropriations bill. There is an amendment pending. Because the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, is concerned she may lose on a vote on the amendment, it is being filibustered, or there is the threat of a filibuster. I think that is unusual. We do have disagreements sometimes on how to proceed to a bill or whether or not to even take up a bill, but it is a little unusual to have this occur on an individual amendment. Senator Daschle and I quite often talk about how we prefer not to do this sort of thing to each other, at least on amendments. What we try to accommodate each other on is a debate, vote, somebody wins, somebody loses, and we move on. Sometimes individual Senators can exercise their right, and they have that right. I hope we will not get into a pattern of doing this. It will make an already cumbersome process even more difficult to complete important work. The Interior appropriations bill, as all appropriations bills, is very important for our country. It has a lot of important provisions, all the way from parks to land management, that we need to get completed. We certainly will work to do that, and that is why I filed this cloture motion.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. It is a very good article. He basically says that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is disarmament, unilateral nuclear disarmament by the United States, because we would not be testing our aging nuclear weapons and saying to the rest of the world: We have been good guys, so we're going to have faith that you're going to be good. I am not prepared to put my grandson's future at risk in this way. So that is how I wanted to respond. I do think hearings could be and should be scheduled in a variety of ways. I hope the chairman will be working on that. I will be talking to him about it, one. Two, I do think this is a dangerous time to rush to judgment on such an important issue. Three, I do think it is the wrong thing to do. And four, if it is called up preemptively, without appropriate consideration and thought, it could be defeated. I think that the advocates need to weigh the ramifications and the implications of such an action. So I know the interest of the Senator. I have already talked with him about it. I will be glad to work with him and to work with the chairman to see what an appropriate time is and what an appropriate process is for having hearings of these critical areas.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first of all, I emphasize, obviously this is a very important issue. I think it is an extremely dangerous issue in a dangerous time. We see now uncertainty with regard to Russia and their economic condition and what is happening with loans that have been made to them I guess through the IMF. We are concerned about their continuing nuclear capability. So it is an uncertain time. They have not ratified SALT II in the Duma of Russia. And we have not determined what we are going to do about revisiting the ABM Treaty. I talked to the President's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, this past week about that event. I believe very strongly we are going to have to take another look at the ABM Treaty. Then, in addition to that, you have the very dangerous situation with Iraq. In today's newspaper, we have an indication that Iran may have the capability to deliver nuclear weapons beyond what most people are aware. And there is the ``scary,'' I believe is the way it was described in the newspaper today, situation with regard to North Korea. The countries that have signed that treaty, for the most part, are countries that do not have nuclear capability, so they are perfectly happy to sign it. But when you look at Russia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and India, the world is still very dangerous. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee has indicated very strongly there are a number of treaties that are necessarily tied together; what is going to be the situation with regard to the ABM Treaty; what is the situation with regard to Kyoto, the global warming issue; and the third leg of this stool is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I think the chairman has indicated he is willing to get into these three areas. He will be taking a look at hearings. I have encouraged him to do so, but I think everybody needs to understand that it would involve all three of these issues. And they are going to be dealt with. I commend for the reading of the Senate today's editorial page article by Charles Krauthammer. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that article be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the time just consumed during the leader's presentation of consent items not count against the Coverdell morning business time.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I express my full support for Senator Gorton's section 329. It is the right thing to do because, without it there would be a new $8 billion mandate on the Forest Service. This provision is needed because it affirms a position taken by three circuit courts and nine Federal courts. Senator Gorton's effort is necessary because it will ensure that the Forest Service and the Nation have a uniform public policy. The opponents of section 329 want to ignore the position taken by three circuit courts and nine Federal courts because they got the decision they liked from the 11th Circuit Court. There is a certain irony here. Here is an instance where environmentalists do not want a one-size-fits-all national policy. Senator Gorton's provision helps the Forest Service. It properly eliminates very expensive and completely unnecessary work by the Forest Service. Senator Gorton would allow the Forest Service to rely on sampling data regarding available habitats for the species. Opponents want the Forest Service to count the actual populations of the species--not just once, but several times to determine population trends. In each case, the three circuit courts and nine Federal courts did not buy this argument. Currently, the Forest Service has followed the Federal court decisions. It has correctly contained to inventory wildlife by habitat availability for almost two decades. Now, the Senate is being asked to ignore 20 years of experience plus decisions from three circuit courts and nine Federal courts. Mr. President, I do not want to ignore the experts at the Forest Service. The Senate is also faced with a decision that will significantly increase the cost of operating the timbers sales program in the Forest Service. Eight billion dollars is real money and spending the taxpayer's hard earned money unwisely is criminal. Let me put the Senator Robb mandated spending into a context. Eight billion dollars is 2\1/2\ times the entire annual budget of the whole Forest Service. Mr. President, it is clear the 11th Circuit Court has ``overreached'' and Senator Robb's mandated spending is unjustified. The current wildlife data requirements can be applied nationwide without threatening species habitats. But timber sales, an authorized and core mission of the Forest Service, would be placed in jeopardy. In Mississippi, timber sales are the lifeblood of many counties. It funds children's education in some of Mississippi's and the Nation's poorest counties. Congress must ensure that Forest Service timber sales continue in a timely fashion. I urge my colleagues to vote against the efforts of Senator Robb. His amendment would, quite frankly, destroy the fiscal viability of two counties in Mississippi. Wayne County and Perry County are currently listed by Federal Governments as two of the poorest in the Nation. They depend on Federal timber sales--remember, this is a legal and primary mission of the Forest Service. Mr. President, Senator Gorton's section 329 is the right provision on the right appropriation bill.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this joint resolution will be eligible for Senate consideration on Friday. I will ask consent to proceed to the joint resolution on Friday, and if an objection is heard, I will move to proceed and file a cloture motion, and that cloture vote will occur at 5 p.m. on Monday. I urge my colleagues to join us in trying to work out language that can be acceptable to Senators on both sides who feel strongly about this. Also, I notify Senators there will be no further recorded votes today or this week, but there will be stacked votes, probably three or four, at 5 o'clock on Monday next. I have notified Senator Daschle of that intent. I ask Senators to be sure to be here. We will not have recorded votes tomorrow. We will probably do some business, but it will not involve votes. The next votes will occur at 5 p.m. on Monday, and all Senators will be expected to be present and accounted for. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in light of the objection, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Right.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in view of the urgent nature of the subject involved, since the subject will be dealt with on Friday of this week, tomorrow, I thought we needed to proceed to have some debate and hopefully even a vote with regard to the matter of the pardon of the Puerto Rican terrorists. So I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to S.J. Res. 33, a joint resolution deploring the actions of President Clinton with respect to clemency for FALN terrorists, and there be 2 hours for debate to be equally divided between the two leaders. I further ask consent that no amendments be in order to the resolution and that following the use or yielding back of the debate time, the joint resolution be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think the Senator's point is well taken, that this has come up quickly. But there is a reason for that. This whole issue came out during the August recess period when Senators were back in their respective States. I think everybody was stunned and shocked and somewhat in disbelief that these 12 or so terrorists--I believe it was 16 total--were going to be offered this clemency and this pardon. We just returned to the Senate for business on Wednesday of this week. There was no earlier opportunity to introduce this resolution, and I understand clemency takes effect tomorrow, on Friday. That is why it has been handled in this way. Having said that, I inquire of Senator Daschle, with those amendments, any amendment that would be offered, would they be relevant to this subject, to the question of the clemency of these terrorists, or would it be his request that any amendment would be in order affecting any subject?

Mr. LOTT. I believe under that circumstance then it goes back to the question of whether or not there is objection to my original request.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first of all, I say to Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, and other Senators on both sides of the aisle, since I believe there apparently will be objection, and there will probably be a vote on this at some point, we will be glad to work on both sides. I know there is a feeling of outrage in the country and on both sides of the political aisle about this happening. We are going to express ourselves either before or after the clemency actually takes place. I extend that invitation to work with us to see if we can develop language that can have the type of broad support that I believe there is in this country on the whole against this action. In view of the request, I have to object to that addition to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 5, 1999, to conduct a hearing on the Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance restructuring of HUD.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 5, 1999 at 2:15 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues, Senate Minority Leader Daschle, and Senators Warner, Chafee, Baucus, and Lincoln, in introducing the Superfund Recycling Equity Act of 1999. This legislation, similar to that which the distinguished minority leader and I introduced in the previous Congress, removes an unintended consequence of the Superfund statute that has inhibited the growth of recycling in our nation. I am certain that when the Congress passed the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Liability and Compensation Act (CERCLA), members of both bodies did not want, and did not suggest, that traditional recyclable materials--paper, glass, plastic, metals, textiles, and rubber--should be any more subject to Superfund liability than a competitive product made of virgin material. However, that is how the courts have interpreted Superfund. Consequently, CERCLA has created a competitive disadvantage between virgin materials used as manufacturing feedstocks and recyclable materials used for precisely the same purpose. The courts have concluded that recyclables are materials that have been disposed of and are therefore subject to Superfund liability. Even most American schoolchildren know, recycling is good for the nation--that recycling is the exact opposite of disposal. Recycling serves important national goals by keeping materials from entering the waste stream. Through recycling we reclaim useful products and materials. We use recyclables as manufacturing feedstocks just as we do virgin raw materials, but using recyclables also helps to preserve the earth's scarce resources, reduces society's energy demand, lowers water and air pollution and reduces solid waste. Mr. President, our bill corrects this unintended consequence of Superfund. It recognizes that recycling is not disposal. That recyclers are not subject to Superfund's liability scheme should the owners of mills, foundries or refineries, to which recyclers ship their material, contaminate their facilities. Let me highlight an example of the unintended consequence that will continue to exist without this needed clarification. A recycler sends scrap metal as feedstock to be manufactured into a new product at a mill. The same mill also uses virgin metals to make the identical product. If the mill contaminates its facility with a hazardous substance, only the recyclable becomes subject to Superfund liability. Because recyclables are considered solid wastes, the recycler's actions are considered arranging for disposal, thus creating liability. However, the shipper of the virgin material is not liable under Superfund since it shipped a product and did not ``arrange for disposal.'' The Superfund Recycling Equity Act of 1999 is essential to correct Superfund's unintended bias against recycling. It will provide the same relief from Superfund liability for legitimate recyclers as that enjoyed by those who sell virgin materials. It will also ensure that, sham recyclers will not benefit from the provisions of this bill. The Superfund Recycling Equity Act contains conditions that can only be met by legitimate recyclers of paper, glass, plastic, metals, textiles and rubber. And, to be free of liability, recyclers must act in an environmentally sound manner and sell their product to manufacturers with environmentally responsible business practices. It is also important to note what this bill will not do. It will not relieve from liability any recycler who has contaminated his own facility. Nor will it assist recyclers who have disposed of waste at landfills or other places at which waste was the cause of a release of hazardous substances to a site that is addressed by the Superfund program. Mr. President, the Senate Minority Leader and I previously stated our intention that, should a more comprehensive Superfund bill fail to move toward conclusion in the Senate, we would work in a bipartisan fashion, toward the goal of Superfund relief for legitimate recyclers in the 1999 session of this Congress. Members of the Environment and Public Works, led by Chairman Chafee, Subcommittee Chairman Smith, and Ranking Minority Member Baucus, have worked extraordinarily hard to try to bring a common sense Superfund bill to the Senate floor that addresses a series of issues, including relief for recyclers. Unfortunately, once again, differences appear to have stymied that effort. I congratulate my colleagues for their efforts to address this issue. However, realizing the chances of passing a more comprehensive Superfund reform bill are now somewhat remote, it is time to address the Superfund recycling issue. The language offered today is similar to the bipartisan measure we introduced last year. In the last Congress, the Minority Leader and I were joined by 63 of our colleagues across party and ideological lines in support of the Superfund Recycling Equity Act (S. 2180). It is now time to complete our work and provide relief--relief for recyclers that is long overdue. There is one remaining issue regarding polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in recycled paper which has been the subject of negotiations between various parties and the Administration. It is my understanding that these parties are negotiating in good faith, and that many, but not all issues, have been resolved. I have said in the past, I would be willing to modify the Superfund recycling language if the original negotiating partners agreed to a proposed language change. That remains my position. Should there be an agreement among the original negotiators on the paper PCB issue subsequent to today's introduction, I will at the earliest appropriate moment make the agreed upon change. Mr. President, Americans have properly embraced the benefits of recycling. Americans know that increased recycling means more efficient use of natural resources and a meaningful reduction in solid waste. By removing the threat of Superfund liability for recyclers, Congress will stimulate more recycling. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this pro-environment bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before I yield the floor to the distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee, I confirm again we are going back to the Interior appropriations bill. We hope to and plan to have debate on amendments beginning right away. We could have a recorded vote on one of the amendments within the next 15 to 30 minutes. We will continue working on the Interior appropriations bill until we get an agreement as to exactly when to proceed to the reconciliation conference report. I will not propound a unanimous consent request at this time, but it is my hope we can get an agreement to begin at 1 o'clock on the consideration of a reconciliation conference report, and we debate it for 6 hours, of course, equally divided in the usual form, and the vote then would occur around 7 o'clock. We do not have that worked out yet. If we require more time, if we have to be in later, then of course the vote would go later in the night, perhaps 8 o'clock or, if we cannot get that worked out, we will go however long we need to go tonight and we would vote on Friday morning sometime. But we hope to get an agreement where we could complete that and have a vote around 7 o'clock tonight. I yield the floor.