Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``ESEA: From Tales to Tape'' during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 1999, at 10:00 a.m.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 20, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. on Internet Filtering.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on damage to the national security from Chinese espionage at DOE nuclear weapons laboratories.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be permitted to meet on Thursday, May 20, 1999 at 10 a.m. for a business meeting to consider pending Committee business.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 1999, at 2:30 p.m. to receive testimony on education issues.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs would like to request unanimous consent to hold a hearing on pending legislation. The hearing will be held on Thursday, May 20, 1999, at 2:15 p.m., in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, Production, and Regulation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 348, a bill to authorize and facilitate a program to enhance training research and development, energy conservation and efficiency and consumer education in the oilheat consumers and the public, and for other purposes.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I wonder if other Senators want me to yield. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we are proceeding under a reservation of the right to object. Senator Enzi was explaining his reservation, and he is asking to be recognized to offer a bill that would call for an across-the-board cut in the appropriations process in order to pay for the additional funding here. Is that the gist of the Senator's reservation of the right to object?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the bill (H.R. 1141) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I believe the procedure is that Senator Harkin would be entitled to the floor, but this unanimous consent agreement will take care of that problem and we will be able to move forward. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the Ashcroft-Frist amendment, No. 355, after 20 minutes of debate to be equally divided in the usual form; following that vote, if agreed to, the Senate immediately agree to an amendment to be offered by Senator Harkin. I further ask that following the disposition of the above two mentioned amendments, if the Ashcroft-Frist amendment is agreed to, the following be the only amendments remaining in order and under a time agreement equally divided, and all other provisions of the previous consent of May 14 still be in place.

Mr. LOTT. This would obviate that and we would move forward with the procedure that is outlined. We would proceed to vote on or in relation to the Ashcroft amendment with time equally divided for 20 minutes, and then the Senate would immediately agree to the amendment offered by Senator Harkin.

Mr. LOTT. Right. Equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. LOTT. Then we would go directly to the agreement to accept the Harkin amendment.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, perhaps I could amend the unanimous consent request to this effect, that we have 30 minutes on the Ashcroft and the Harkin amendments, with each side getting 15 minutes. The Senator would have 15 minutes, Senators Ashcroft and Frist would have 15 minutes, and they would split it up between themselves. I modify my request to that effect.

Mr. LOTT. That will be the way the vote will occur.

Mr. LOTT. I thank all involved. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Would it be possible he could do that after final passage? The reason why, and I understand--I would like any Senator to be able to do that--we do have a number of Senators who would like to be able to leave by 6. You are talking about airplanes. You are talking about a son's athletic event. It is the usual thing. To admit we have these sorts of requests is not always easy.

Mr. LOTT. Perhaps we will not use all the time and we could stick it in there, but if he would be willing to at least consider it after final passage it would help a number of his colleagues. We will work on that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes--there are two of them in a series--be limited to 10 minutes in length. Senators, please don't leave the room. We are actually going to see if we can do one in 10 minutes. It is this one right now.

Mr. LOTT. Usually we do that. I hope that we will not exceed that.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator Bob Smith and Senator. John Chafee in introducing the Superfund Program Completion Act. For several years Congress has worked diligently to find common ground for all parties involved, common ground that will also correct the flaws of the original law. Senator Smith's legislation will do just that. In 1980, Congress approved the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) which was intended to pay for the cleanup of the nation's most hazardous waste sites. This law became known as Superfund--a bit ironic since the law provides no funding, but instead requires those who operated or used the landfill to pay for the cleanup. There is logic and fairness in requiring the polluters to pay for the cleanup; however, Superfund's liability structure was so poorly planned excessive litigation was encouraged. Cleanup did not occur and costs were passed to small businesses across the nation. Superfund did cause unnecessary lawsuits and wasted valuable time, all the while leaving sites across America polluted. Mr. President, this new legislation by Senators Smith and Chafee would exempt those small businesses who acted in good faith and are still being dragged into Superfund as third and fourth party defendants by simply throwing out their household trash. Superfund does not distinguish large from small, nor does it distinguish polluters from responsible businesses. In many instances, these business owners did nothing wrong. Yet, the law penalizes people for something that at one time was legal. Virtually all sides agree that some small businesses should have never been pulled into the system. While this legislation would not be retroactive, it will save small businesses in other communities from future Superfund lawsuits. It is important to reward those who have acted responsibly. I believe Senator Smith's bill is responsible. Mr. President, I do not believe there is one Senator who is pleased with the way in which the Superfund statute has operated. Like small businesses, recyclers have also been targeted to pay for cleanup. They should not be held responsible for pollution at a Superfund site. The Administration agrees. A majority of the Congress agrees. The environmental community agrees. Senator Smith's bill will fix the recycler's problem and remain faithful to the environment. Over the past three decades, concern for our environment and natural resources has grown--as has the desire to recycle and reuse. This makes environmental sense. This legislation would remove an unintended yet troublesome legal obstacle to recycling. This bill corrects current law and encourages recycling. It simply recognizes that recycling is not disposal and that recyclables are not waste. Common sense tells us that recycling something is not the same as disposing of it. This bill will help level the playing field between the use of recycled goods and competitive virgin raw materials. Currently suppliers of virgin raw materials face no Superfund liability for contamination caused by the consumer. This bill will supply the same waiver to those who sell recyclable materials. This bill also contains protections to ensure that sham recyclers are unable to benefit from this exemption. In order for recyclers to be relieved of Superfund liability, they must act in an environmentally sound manner and sell their product to manufacturers with environmentally responsible business practices. Considering that most recyclers are currently operating in a reasonable and conscience manner, this should be an easy test. Mr. President, the recycling portion of the bill is the product of lengthy negotiations between the federal and state governments, the environmental community and the recycling industry. It serves only one purpose--to remove from the liability loop those who collect and ship recyclables to a third party site. These negotiations have resulted in a provision that I believe to be both environmentally and fiscally sound. By removing the threat of Superfund liability for recyclers, we will encourage more recycling. Mr. President, while this provision is not precisely the Superfund Recycling Equity Act which Senator Daschle and I introduced last year-- a bill which was supported by 63 of our Senate colleagues--I look forward to working with all parties to ensure we pass a bill that the Administration, environmentalists, and industry can support. Mr. President, I will also work with my colleagues to ensure that no Superfund taxes will be reinstated. After many years and millions and millions of dollars spent by the government, large businesses, municipalities, schools, and small businesses, only a fraction of the costs has been devoted to cleanup. This cannot continue to happen. I have seen a copy of the May 14, 1999, letter from Senators Chafee and Smith to the Environmental Protection Agency, and I completely agree with its conclusions. There is no need for additional tax revenue. I want to quote from their letter because the Senators said it just right. ``Many responsible parties who have already paid for their own cleanups would also be liable for reimposed taxes. They are frankly unwilling to see the tax reinstated unless there are sweeping reforms in the structure of the program, as well. We find their arguments persuasive. We will not vote to reimpose the tax, unless it is part of a comprehensive Superfund reform.'' ``There is a second reason for our opposition to a tax extension at this time. As we noted in a recent letter to Administrator Browner, Congress has appropriated $15.9 billion for Superfund from its inception through 1988. The Superfund Trust Fund was created to facilitate rapid cleanups carried out by the federal government's expenditures would be recovered from responsible parties once the cleanup action was complete. This is real ``polluters pay'' principle.'' ``However, only a small percentage of the $15.9 billion has been recovered. To date, the Agency has obtained commitments to recover $2.4 billion. EPA has written off $5 billion of past expenditures and GAO reports that another $1.9 billion is likely unrecoverable because EPA did not properly calculate its indirect costs. This is a troubling record. A good cost recovery program that actually made the real polluters (as opposed to the taxpaying industries) pay could have recovered sufficient funds to carry Superfund through another authorization cycle without the reimposition of taxes. We are reluctant to ask Superfund taxpayers to once again prop up a Trust Fund that EPA has allowed to dwindle.'' Mr. President, I'm very impressed with the Chairman Chafee and Chairman Smith have done in getting this bill drafted and introduced. They are also working on a second major environmental bill in the waste area--RCRA. Last year we jointly requested a report from the GAO on what saving and efficiencies can be achieved with rifle shot fixes. This year Senators Chafee and Smith have been diligently working on finalizing a legislative approach that is compatible to this GAO study. I know their staffs have been consulting with all the stakeholders, and I look forward to seeing this bill this summer. Hopefully, both bills will have a chance to advance through the legislative process so that the full Senate can consider them. Both approaches are reforms that Americans deserve and need. As environmentalists talk about laws which protect the environment, Congress must determine who actually bears the burden of cost, and determine the balance. Superfund does not discriminate. The way Superfund is being implemented, it attacks our neighbors, our schools, and even our corner grocers. The Superfund Program Completion Act makes positive strides toward correcting the balance and reflects society's progress from the 80's and incorporates the methods of the 90's.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a subpoena for testimony and document production in an action brought by the United States Customs Service in the Court of International Trade against Nippon Miniature Bearing, Inc., and its parent and subsidiary, alleging false representations to Customs about the composition of imported bearings. The defendants have subpoenaed Tim Osborn, a former employee of the Senate Committee on Small Business, seeking to depose him regarding his communications with the Customs Service and others about this investigation. Mr. Osborn's activities were on behalf of the Small Business Committee, in preparing for and conducting a September 1988 oversight hearing of the Customs Service concerning its enforcement of laws affecting the bearing industry. The information that the defendants seek therefore is privileged from compelled discovery from the Congress under the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause. This resolution would authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to provide representation in order to move to quash the subpoena and otherwise protect the Senate's privileges in this matter. The resolution would authorize Mr. Osborn and any other former Member or employee of the Senate to testify and produce documents in this case only to the extent consistent with these privileges.