Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

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 joint subcommittee hearing with the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs of the House Committee on Government Reform, which is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony and conduct oversight on the Administration's FY2000 budget request for climate change programs and compliance with various statutory provisions in FY1999 appropriations acts requiring detailed accounting of climate change spending and performance measures for each requested increase in funding.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 20, 1999, at 2:30 pm on Commercial Space.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be permitted to meet on Thursday, May 20, 1999 at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing on Oversight of National Security Methods and Processes Relating to the Wen-Ho Lee Espionage Investigation.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the supplemental appropriations conference report and there be 3 hours for debate, to be equally divided in the usual form, and that it be in order for Senator Gramm to raise a point of order against the conference report, and at that point there be 30 minutes equally divided in the usual form on the motion to waive. I further ask that following the conclusion or yielding back of time and the disposition of the motion to waive the Budget Act, if successful, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report.

Mr. LOTT. In light of the objection, I renew my request for time agreements on the supplemental conference report, as stated earlier in my remarks, with 15 minutes of the Democrats' time under Senator Dorgan and 10 minutes of the Republican time under Senator McCain.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, what we have now--if I could explain it to the Senate--we have set aside the juvenile justice bill for now. We are going to do the supplemental appropriations bill. We have a 3-hour time agreement with some specific time set up for individual Senators. We also have a waiver of a point of order, with 30 minutes of time equally divided on that. So there will be a vote on that point of order and, I presume, the vote on final passage. At that point, it is our intention to go back to the juvenile justice bill. I say to the Senators who reserved their right to object, I certainly understand why they are doing it. I appreciate it and I want to support their effort. There is no question that more of this bill should have been offset. I know the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who is probably in the vicinity, does not agree with that. But I have indicated all along I thought there should be more offsets. To Senators Enzi and Brownback, Hutchinson, Grams, and perhaps Sessions--and I am not quite sure if Senator McCain is here to raise that concern also--I certainly am sympathetic, but there was objection heard from Senator Dorgan.

Mr. LOTT. I will yield to the Senator.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to make a couple of unanimous consent requests. First, I want to commend the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his work on the supplemental appropriations. It is never easy for him, but it is easy for us to second-guess and be judgmental. In his unique way he does a magnificent job.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, consumers, motor vehicle administrators, law enforcement, and the automotive and insurance industries anxiously await Congressional action on appropriate and workable title branding legislation. Legislation that provides used car purchasers with much needed pre-purchase disclosure information for severely damaged vehicles. As a result of varying state approaches, consumers are not always advised of a vehicle's damage history. The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act, S. 655, that I introduced back in March, would help correct this problem. It provides grant funds to states to encourage their adoption of uniform terms and procedures for salvage and other severely damaged vehicles. While a mandatory federal scheme was suggested during the last Congress, there were serious Constitutional concerns and the real potential that Congress would create an expensive unfunded mandate on states. The approach taken in S.655 overcomes these problems and provides states with offsetting funding. Mr. President, it is clear that any title branding legislation Congress adopts must contain a rational definition for vehicles that sustain significant water damage. The Congressionally chartered Motor Vehicle Titling, Registration and Salvage Advisory Committee, whose recommendations for curtailing title fraud and automobile theft spurred my sponsorship of S.655, came to the reasoned conclusion that water damage was so potentially insidious in nature that a separate and distinct consumer disclosure category needed to be created. One that distinguished flood vehicles from salvage and nonrepairable vehicles. S. 655, which is similar to the bipartisan measure I coauthored with Senator Ford during the last Congress, adopts a distinct flood vehicle category and improves upon the definition initially proposed by the task force. Mr. President, I am sure my colleagues are aware that the State of Illinois, which initially adopted the task force's recommended flood definition, subsequently revised it based on anti-consumer results. Illinois found that branding ``any vehicle that has been submerged in water to the point that rising water has reached over the door sill or has entered the passenger or truck compartment'' caused too many vehicles to be unnecessarily branded as ``flood'' vehicles. Vehicles that were significantly devalued and lost their manufacturers warranty when the only damage the vehicle suffered was wet carpets or wet floor mats. S.655 is a good example of the need to balance competing consumer interests when establishing uniform titling definitions. Instead of unnecessarily and inappropriately branding vehicles with mere cosmetic damage, this legislation rightly brands as ``flood'' those vehicles which sustain water damage that impairs a car or truck's electrical, mechanical, or computerized functions. It also requires the ``flood'' designation for vehicles acquired by an insurer as part of a water damage settlement. This measure also includes an independent flood inspection as recommended by a working group of the National Association of Attorney's General. Mr. President, I ask my collegues to heed the call of used-car buyers and provide them with a reasonable and workable title branding measure. One that includes all of the minimal definitions needed to protect them from title fraud and automobile theft.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize that today is National Maritime Day, when the Nation pays tribute to the American Merchant Mariners who have given their lives in the service of their country. Throughout the history of the United States, our U.S.-flag Merchant Marine has always been there, providing the support that time and again has proven to be essential to victory. It is with the most profound gratitude for the service and sacrifice of America's Merchant Marine veterans that we reflect upon the importance of our U.S.-flag fleet on this day. On April 29, 1999, I was privileged to be given a very special momento by a group of Merchant Marine Veterans of World War II. It was a patch, of the kind worn by Merchant Mariners during World War II, and it was designed in 1944 by Walt Disney Studios. Walt Disney's people created a mascot for the Merchant Marine, called ``Battlin' Pete,'' and the patch shows Pete knocking out an Axis torpedo. The presentation was made to express the veterans' gratitude for a very important piece of legislation that the Senate passed last year. Last year's veterans' benefits bill ensures that those American Merchant Marine veterans who served our country in World War II between August 16, 1945--the day that hostilities were officially declared at an end by President Truman--and December 31, 1946--the cut-off day for World War II service for all other service branches--receive honorable discharges for their service and are eligible for veterans' burial and cemetery benefits. This is the least we can do for these deserving veterans. I was privileged to introduce legislation during the 105th Congress seeking that change, and it was later incorporated into the veterans' benefits bill. The overwhelming majority of World War II Merchant Mariners were previously awarded veterans status. Now, those who served in harm's way through the war's final days are also being recognized. Although Japan officially surrendered in August of 1945, harbors in Japan, Germany, Italy, France--indeed, across the world--still were mined. Twenty-two U.S.-government-owned vessels, carrying military cargoes, were damaged or sunk by mines after V-J Day. At least four U.S. Merchant Mariners were killed and 28 injured aboard these vessels. Even as Americans at home were celebrating victory, American Merchant Mariners carried on as they have always done--bravely serving their country with pride and professionalism. I am proud that, at that April ceremony, the first honorable discharges for this previously forgotten group went to two Merchant Marine veterans from my home state of Mississippi: Mr. Robert Hoomes and Mr. Louis Breaux. Also, I was pleased that Mr. Joseph Katusa, National Chairman, Merchant Marine Fairness Committee, received his honorable discharge. The ceremony was attended by my good friend and colleague, Congressman Bob Stump, Chairman, House Veterans' Affairs Committee; Mr. Rudy de Leon, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Admiral Jim Loy, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard; and Mr. George Searle, National President, American Merchant Marine Veterans. I would like to thank them for participating in the ceremony and acknowledging the service of Mr. Breaux, Mr. Hoomes, and Mr. Katusa, and the role that these, and all, Merchant Marine veterans played in preserving freedom. As we mark National Maritime Day, it is important to note that our country's Merchant Mariners continue to stand ready to serve. In fact, the leaders of the major maritime labor unions--the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association; the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots; the National Maritime Union of America; the American Maritime Officers; and the Seafarers International Union of North America--recently expressed their readiness to support America's military effort in the Balkans. Recent reports that Greek seamen are refusing to support that effort is a reminder of why the United States requires its own highly capable Merchant Marine. Mr. President, I will treasure that patch of ``Battlin' Pete'' from the Merchant Marine Veterans of World War II. It will always remind me of the importance of National Maritime Day, and of the sacrifices that America's Merchant Mariner veterans have made in the service of their country. For those who braved the Murmansk run; for those who served through the conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf; for those who today stand ready to sail into harm's way with our Armed Forces; we salute you on this day.

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, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Smith of Oregon and Jeffords.

Mr. LOTT. Two hours more debate?

Mr. LOTT. I think that is another amendment. Don't you have another Wellstone amendment?

Mr. LOTT. Then I would add we would then pass this amendment by voice vote. I was just kidding, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. Is that the procedure? Did he have the floor anyway? I am told you have that right anyway, so I don't think we give anything up by including it in the unanimous consent request.

Mr. LOTT. That is the status. But I would be glad to modify it to that extent, because it just confirms what the status is, procedurally, anyway.

Mr. LOTT. No, it would not be voted on tonight. What we would do, for these four amendments, is debate and then vote, and the pending business would be the Frist-Ashcroft amendment at the end of that. I want to make that clear so you are not dispositioned by that.

Mr. LOTT. There will be an effort for that to be either the first or the second vote. The pending business, I believe, would be the Ashcroft-Frist issue. We would have to dispose of that and then we would go to, I hope, a series of additional stacked amendments which would lead off, I presume, with Lautenberg right at the front. In order to do that before we did Ashcroft-Frist, we would have to get another agreement. I would like to do it because I think that is an issue that a lot of people feel very strongly about. I would like to do it like the rest. It is time to vote.

Mr. LOTT. I thank Senator Daschle for his comments. I very strongly feel the same way. We have come a long way on this bill. The underlying bill was one that had bipartisan support. We have narrowed down the number of amendments to a finite list. Senator Reid has worked very diligently to accomplish that. We must deal with the supplemental appropriations bill before we go. In order to do that, we will have to have some cooperation. I have been criticized because I have maybe tried to be too fair, everybody has that fair, straight-up shot: No second-degrees, make your point, have the vote, win some, lose some. If we go with that attitude, we can complete this list and the other amendments and complete this bill and do the supplemental.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are now anxiously awaiting the comments of the Senator from Minnesota. We hope he will feel free to condense his time. Oh, the managers' amendment would be first. We expect there would be stacked votes in sequence between 7:30 and 8. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. That was not there.

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have three more votes now in the stacked sequence. I ask unanimous consent that in this series the next three votes be limited to 10 minutes in length.

Mr. LOTT. I think I got lost. Is it just a division of how the time would go on your side?