Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we will resume consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill with amendments in order as outlined in the consent agreement reached on March 19. I should advise the Senate that there is beginning now a working group of Senators who will be working to determine if they can draft language for the resolution regarding the Kosovo situation. We still have pending the Hutchison amendment and the Smith amendment. And there will be a bipartisan effort to see if there can be some compromise language worked out or some language that might be voted on in some form before the afternoon is over. In the meantime, we are working now toward an agreement with regard to consideration of the supplemental appropriations and beginning of the consideration of the budget resolution. The managers are here, and they are ready to begin to work on some amendments, I believe, which have been cleared. We hope that within the next 30 minutes we can enter into an agreement with regard to finishing the supplemental today, with Kosovo language being considered in the process as a possibility, and then begin tomorrow on the budget resolution. With that, I yield the floor so that the distinguished chairman can begin to have these amendments considered that are ready to be cleared. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Hutchison amendment, No. 81, be temporarily set aside under the same terms as previously agreed to with respect to the call for the regular order.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are obviously dealing with very serious matters for the future of our country and our military men and women today. We want to make sure we proceed properly. We are looking at how to proceed on the Kosovo issue and the supplemental appropriations and be prepared for consideration of the budget resolution beginning tomorrow. We have looked at a lot of options. Obviously, we have been talking among ourselves and the administration, and Senator Daschle and I have gone through a couple proposals. Our conclusion is, at this time we should go forward with the cloture vote as scheduled. The cloture vote is on the Smith amendment, which is an amendment to the Hutchison amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill. When that vote is concluded, depending on how that vote turns out, then we will either proceed on the Smith amendment or we will set it aside, if cloture is defeated, and work on the supplemental appropriations bill while we see if we can work out an agreement on language or how we proceed further on the Kosovo issue. We thought the better part of valor at this time is to have the vote on cloture. Is that Senator Daschle's understanding, too? We will continue to work with the interested parties. A bipartisan group will sit down together and look at language to see if we can come up with an agreement on that language. We may be able to, maybe not. But we should make that effort. Then we also will press on the supplemental appropriations bill while we do that. With that, Mr. President, I ask for the regular order. Cloture Motion

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senator Byrd and I, as a matter of fact, just came from an extended meeting with the President of the United States, where the joy of our grandchildren and great grandchildren was also uppermost in our minds, because we are talking about actions by our country, our Government, that affect the young people--a military action. While I always try to have that smile on my face, sometimes it is very serious, what we have to attend to. But I appreciate Senator Byrd's comments this morning to the President. I appreciate the President of the United States meeting with the leaders of Congress as we talk about the situation regarding Serbia and Kosovo. I thought it was a positive step. The Senate, the Congress, must be involved and consulted if a decision is made to take military action, certainly if it is an action that could lead to being an act of war. And we will consider this very carefully. I think it is important this afternoon, and on Monday, the Senate be heard on this issue; that we have the time to discuss and debate, as a matter of fact, the merits and demerits of the plans in Kosovo, what risks are involved. I don't believe the American people now are properly informed about the situation as it now exists. The dynamics have definitely changed in the last few days. We have gone from considering whether or not ground troops from the United States as a part of a NATO mission would be placed in a peaceable situation in Kosovo--to a situation where it appears that an agreed settlement is not going to be achieved and that the Serbian officials will not agree to have a NATO force come in a peaceful arrangement--to the possibility of airstrikes involving Serbian troops and Serbian sites. This is a very serious step. I think the Senate should have an opportunity to be briefed as we were on Thursday, as we meet with the President as we did today, and to continue to be involved in the dialog. I believe the President needed to hear some of the things that he heard today. That is why these meetings are not one-way, they are two- way streets--to make sure that we as the people's representatives are being heard. We made the point, the Speaker and others made the point, that the President needs to address this issue with the American people, explain what the present circumstances are. The President will have a press conference this afternoon. I hope he will address it, and I hope there will be appropriate questions about exactly what the plans are for our military in the near term. Does Senator Byrd wish me to yield on that point?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on behalf of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I now call for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 81.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk to the pending Hutchison amendment.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 30 minutes equally divided, for debate only, on Tuesday, March 23, beginning at 11:45, and a cloture vote occur at 12:15 on Tuesday, and the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk to the pending second-degree amendment.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the purpose of the procedure that I just undertook was to make sure we had an opportunity today and on Monday to begin to debate the issue surrounding Kosovo and to decide what the Senate's role should be and what action we will take. This may not be the amendment we wind up considering in the end, but to make sure that we have this opportunity for this debate, I thought it was essential we go ahead and take this action now. I have been working with the minority leader for the last 2 days in an effort to try to reach an agreement with respect to the situation in Kosovo, as to how we could consider it and when that would be. Unfortunately, because of the evolving circumstances and because of the briefings that occurred on Thursday and again today, we have not been able to best decide how to proceed. Therefore, I did call up the Hutchinson amendment, which primarily had to do with the things that would have to occur, information we would have to receive from the President before the deployment of ground troops in Kosovo. I then sent to the desk an amendment to that which said, basically, that military action could not be undertaken without the Senate having considered this issue. That is basically the Smith of New Hampshire proposal. Again, I reiterate, so we can lock in the guarantee that we will have an opportunity to discuss this, a cloture motion was filed, but hopefully it won't be necessary to have this vote occur on cloture. We will need to continue to talk about how to proceed, how long we will need, what a vote would be, or to make the decision not to go forward with it would also be an option. I will continue to work with Senators on both sides of the aisle who wish to be heard on this to try to come to a conclusion about how we want to have this vote. We also have the situation where next week the budget resolution will be taken up on Tuesday afternoon, and we have 50 hours of debate on that. It is our intent to complete action on that before we leave so that we can, for the first time in a long time, meet the April 15 deadline in having a budget resolution agreed to. We have a lot of work to do. I want to try to set this up. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. LOTT. I thank Senator Daschle for his cooperation. I thank Senator Cleland. I thought it was just going to be a couple of minutes. You have been very patient. Thank you for yielding this time. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator would yield, I think that is a reasonable request. My only purpose in trying to get it to begin and be completed before the policy luncheon is so we could go right to the budget resolution right after lunch. I think to just have the vote right after lunch at 2:15 and then go to the budget resolution is a reasonable request. We will have Monday in which Senators can begin to express themselves. Senator Byrd and I just had a little colloquy. We will have more Members, I hope, available, as we go forward, and Senators are already calling to indicate they would like to be heard even this afternoon or Monday, to discuss this. We will have the opportunity Tuesday morning. I want to say, again, we may decide to vitiate all of this. We are just not ready to go forward. If that is the case, then we will do so. I will modify my request to say that--I would like to have the time still equally divided before the luncheon--the vote occur at 2:15 instead of 12:15.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Georgia allow me a brief action before he makes his statement, dealing with the schedule?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to express my happiness and congratulations to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia on the birth of his great granddaughter. One of the most memorable experiences I had in my life in the Senate was his beautiful and eloquent statement on the floor in recognition of June 20, 1998, the date of the birth of that fine young American, my grandson, Chester Trent Lott, III. So I know how much it means to Senator Byrd as his family continues to grow and expand, and what a lovely gift it is to have that great grandchild. I thank Senator Byrd for making us all aware of this. I am sorry my eloquence could never rise to the level of his on the birth of my grandson. But I will continue to work on that, I should say to Senator Byrd.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The Governors say: . . . we are adamantly opposed to any amendments that would restrict how States spend their tobacco settlement money. They point out that 20 percent of the settlement funds, under this amendment, would have to go for smoking cessation, and then another 30 percent for health care programs. But also what the States do has to be approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Why? What do they have at HHS that the various States don't have, and why can't they decide on their own what is best for their people? They say in their letter they are opposed to earmarks on smoking cessation on the basis that it represents unsound public policy. They then go on to say that there are many things already being done. In fact, the settlement agreement contains two major programs funded at $1.7 billion over 10 years dedicated to reducing smoking, and $250 million over the next 10 years will go toward the creation of a national charitable foundation that will support the study of programs to reduce teen smoking. An additional $1.45 billion over 5 years will go toward the National Public Education Fund to counter youth tobacco use and educate consumers about tobacco-related diseases. So there is a great deal already being done. There is a significant number of restrictions in the settlement with regard to advertising and promotion of smoking. The States are already, on their own, spending funds for the smoking cessation campaign. The Governors need flexibility. That is what they say. In one State, perhaps, they need more money for smoking cessation. Fine. Perhaps they need more money for child health care. I think under this amendment that would be fine. But in another State perhaps they need it for HOPE scholarships, like Governor Engler in Michigan has been talking about. Or perhaps in another State, like my own, they want to use these funds for juvenile detention facilities, which, by the way, would be smoke- free. But there is a real need there. Let the States make those decisions. Again, I want to point out that in the letter from Secretary Shalala she notes that the Federal share of Medicaid expenses ranges from 50 to 77 percent. And they don't want anything to happen here that would not allow them to come back around later and try to get more, or large, chunks of this money. I think that is typical Federal Government arrogance: ``We have the solutions. We have the greater knowledge.'' I fundamentally reject that. I think the people closer to the problems are closer to the people, whether it is the farmers, or the children, or health care needs of the children in their States. I represent one of the poorest States in the Nation. We have tremendous needs for our children based on problems of poverty. We have needs across the board. We know what those needs are better than some all-powerful Federal Government. So I just want to urge that this amendment be defeated. I don't think, by the way, that every year for the next 25 years the States should have to submit their plan to the Department of Health and Human Services. Maybe the next Department will be headed by a Republican-appointed Secretary of HHS. ``Frankly, I don't care, my dear.'' I think the States can do this on their own. The Federal Government wants the money. Or, if they don't get the money, they want to control it. That is one of the reasons I am glad to serve in the Senate today--so I can fight just such ideas as this, that the Federal Government has the answers and should have the control. We should reject this amendment and allow the States to do what is best for their people. They know what the needs are. They will provide the right decision. I yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Parliamentary inquiry. Rather than just waiting here, whose time is being used?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, since all time has been used, except for maybe 5 minutes--40 seconds for the opponents and 4\1/2\ minutes or so for the proponents--I would like to use leader time to state my position on this issue. This morning I happened to be listening to one of the Washington, DC, all-news radio stations. There was an ad on there done by the Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, speaking about the importance of tobacco cessation campaigns. Now, I wondered who paid for that, how that was being supported. Why was a Lieutenant Governor--a candidate for Governor--being used in this ad? It relates to this whole debate. I think probably the State of Maryland is paying for that campaign, or maybe it is a campaign unrelated to all this. But the point there is that there is already a lot being done, and there is going to be a lot more done in the smoking cessation campaigns by the States. Mr. President, this is a very fundamental argument. It goes to the heart of the broader question: Does the Federal Government have the great wisdom reposing here in the Secretary of HHS, or do States have a certain modicum of wisdom of their own? Frankly, I trust the Governor of Pennsylvania and the legislature in Pennsylvania. I trust the Governors of Iowa and Illinois, and the legislature in Ohio, and in my own State, to make the best decision for the people in that State. There are those here who think the Federal Government has to review this, the Federal Government has the answer, the Federal Government must direct how this money is spent. I don't agree with that. That is the fundamental argument here on this issue and on a lot of others, as well. First, a little history. How did this all begin? Well, whether you agree with it or not, or whether I like it or not, it began in my State of Mississippi. An attorney general developed this lawsuit and, to their credit, they did a fantastic job. The Federal Government wasn't involved. The Federal Government could not find a way to get involved. They did it. It was Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Washington State, all across the Nation. The States, through their attorneys general and their lawyers, did the job and they got settlements. They got the money. They won the issue. Now, the Federal Government shows up and says, oh, by the way, give me that. The truth of the matter is, there are many people in this city who think all of that money, or somewhere between 50 and 77 percent of that money, should come to Washington, even though the Federal Government did nothing to win this settlement. They weren't a positive force. But they have the temerity to show up and say the law requires this or that and they want that money. I want to emphasize again that you are talking about a very substantial portion of that money. Now, I want to submit for the Record--I don't know if there are already in the Record--a letter I received from the National Governors' Association, signed by Governor Carper of Delaware, a Democrat, and Michael Leavitt, the Republican Governor of Utah, addressed to Senator Daschle and myself. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record, along with a letter I received from Secretary Shalala.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in answering the question of the Senator from Texas, all first-degree amendments that are listed would be subject to relevant second-degree amendments, but if they are not on that list, then they would not be subject to relevant second-degree amendments. I guess that a second-degree amendment in the nature of a substitute would be in order.

Mr. LOTT. Did we get agreement to that request? I will go ahead and complete the entire request. Let me say on the list of amendments, Senator Daschle is correct. There are apparently 80-something amendments on that list. I assume that a lot of them are defensive in nature and some of them can very likely be accepted. We have the two best managers, probably, in the Senate handling this bill--the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd. I am sure they will go through that list like a knife through hot butter. But there are some on that list that certainly will have to be dealt with in the regular order. We will work on our side to get that list worked down, just as I am sure Senator Daschle will. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the above-listed amendments, the bill be advanced to third reading and passage occur, all without any intervening action or debate. I further ask that the bill remain at the desk, and when the Senate receives the House companion bill, the Chair automatically strike all after the enacting clause, insert the text of S. 544, as amended, the House bill be advanced to third reading and the bill be passed, all without intervening action or debate. I further ask that the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate. For the information of those who might be wondering about that, the House has not yet acted on this supplemental. It is anticipated they will not act until Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. Therefore, we do not want to run this to final completion. This will allow us to stop at a critical point and wait for the House action and then go straight to conference. Finally, I ask that the Senate bill be placed back on the Calendar and final passage occur no later than 11 a.m. on Friday, March 19, and that paragraph 4 of rule XII be waived.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I revise my unanimous consent request. It is the same as earlier stated, but I will delete the last phrase with regard to these words: ``And final passage occur no later than 11 a.m. on Friday, March 19, and that paragraph 4, rule XII, be waived.'' Therefore, it will conclude with these words: ``Finally, I ask that the Senate bill be placed back on the Calendar.''

Mr. LOTT. I thank Senator Daschle. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the only remaining first-degree amendments in order to S. 544, with the exception of the pending amendments; that they be subject to relevant second-degrees and that no other motions, other than motions to table, be in order. I submit the list and, Mr. President, I believe the Democratic leadership has a copy of this list also. The list of amendments is as follows: Amendment List for Supplemental Domenici: 1. New Mexico southwest border HIDTA. 2. Oil/gas loan guarantee. Specter/Durbin: Unfair foreign competition/trade fairness. Hutchison: Kosovo. Robb: Cavalese, Italy claims. Stevens: 1. Non-Indian health service. 2. Glacier Bay compensation. 3. Relevant. 4. Relevant. Hatch: Ethical standards for Federal prosecutors. Gregg: Fishing permits. Gorton: 1. Hardrock mining. 2. Power generation equipment. Brownback/Roberts: Natural gas producers. DeWine: 1. Counterdrug research. 2. Counterdrug funding. Smith (NH): Kosovo. Enzi: 1. States' rights. 2. Livestock assistance. 3. Livestock assistance. 4. Relevant. Murkowski: Glacier Bay. Ashcroft: Emergency assistance to USDA. Bond: 1. Hog producers. 2. 1998 disaster. Jeffords: Relevant. Gramm: 1. Strike emergency designation. 2. Steel loan program (4 amendments). 3. Offsets (4 amendments). 4. Relevant. Kohl: Bankruptcy technical correction. Lincoln: 1. Debris removal. 2. CRCT. Gorton: Loan deficiency payments. Dorgan: Shared appreciation amendment. Kohl: NRCS conservation operation funding. Lott: 3 relevant amendments. Lott: Rules. DeWine: Steel. Leahy/Jeffords: Funding for apple growers. Cochran: 1. Relevant. 2. Relevant. Grams: $3.4 million transfer within HUD. Burns: Sheep improvement center. Nickles: Emergency. Craig: Agriculture sales to Iran. Biden: Relevant. Bingaman: 1. SoS Home care. 2. Energy related. 3. Ag related. Byrd: 1. Relevant. 2. Relevant. 3. Relevant. Daschle: 1. Ellsworth AFB. 2. Missouri River. 3. Firefighters. 4. Relevant. 5. Relevant. 6. Relevant. 7. Tobacco recoupment. Dorgan: Grain sale to Iran. Durbin: 1. Medicaid recoupment. 2. Kosovo (2nd degree). 3. Relevant. Edwards: TANF. Feinstein: WIC increase. Feingold: Relevant. Harkin; 1. Tobacco. 2. Relevant. 3. Relevant. 4. Relevant. Johnson: 1. Relevant. 2. Relevant. 3. Relevant. Kerry: Hard rock mining. Kerrey: Flood control--Corps of Engineers. Landrieu: 1. Central America--disaster fund. 2. Immigration. 3. Immigration. Leahy: Apple growers. Levin: Relevant. Murray: Rural schools--class size fix. Reed: OSHA Small farm rider. Robb: Ski gondola victims. Torricelli: Relevant. Graham: 1. Micro Herbicide. 2. Sec. 3002--Counterdrug.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a civil action commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the United States Senate and all Members of the Senate by a pro se plaintiff during the impeachment trial of President Clinton. The amended complaint improperly seeks judicial intervention directing Senators on how they should have voted on the question of whether to convict on the impeachment articles. The action is subject to dismissal on numerous jurisdictional grounds, including lack of constitutional standing, political question, sovereign immunity, and the Speech or Debate Clause. This resolution authorizes the Senate Legal Counsel to represent the Senate and Senators in this suit to move for its dismissal.