Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, does he reserve the right to object or did he object?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, so we can proceed with this in an appropriate manner, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I renew my request as previously outlined, with one change; that is, that it say in the first sentence ``unanimous consent that following the conclusion of the arguments by the managers and the counsel today on the motion to dismiss, that it be in order for Senator Harkin to make a motion to open that debate.'' Instead of ``all,'' the word is ``that'' debate. With that and no other changes, I renew that request.

Mr. LOTT. The reservation is withdrawn, I believe.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, welcome to the operations of the U.S. Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, was the unanimous consent agreement agreed to?

Mr. LOTT. I renew my request. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Under his reservation, if the Senator would yield to me, I believe if we can get this agreed to, he can make his request and then it can be ruled on. Mr. Chief Justice, I yield the floor if the Senator would like to proceed in that fashion. I renew my request, again, for the unanimous consent as outlined earlier.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, now, if I could, I will outline the result of our efforts there. I thank Senator Daschle and my colleagues on his side of the aisle and this side of the aisle for trying to come up with a process that is fair and that would give us an opportunity today to debate this important issue. It is never easy to get 100 Senators to agree on a method to proceed, so I think this was a good accomplishment. I thank one and all. I understand that now Senator Byrd will offer the motion to dismiss. For the information of all Members, once that motion is offered, there will then be 2 hours for debate. The House managers will be recognized to open the debate, and following that will be the White House arguments. Then the House managers will be recognized again for closing remarks. At that point, the consent agreement would apply. I anticipate taking our first break at the conclusion of the first 2 hours of arguments by the managers and White House counsel, unless there is an urgent need to do so earlier. Then we will go forward with this agreement, which will require a vote on the Harkin motion to open the debate; the vote on the amendment to close debate on the motion to dismiss; and then the debate which would go on, the 10-minute rule notwithstanding, until the close of business today. I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Could I inquire? Is there further presentation from the White House counsel, or will the time be used for concluding remarks by the House managers?

Mr. LOTT. In view of that, Mr. Chief Justice, I understand the White House counsel will have no further presentation to make, so what is left would be the concluding remarks by the House managers. I would like for us, when that is concluded, to go right into the votes. In view of that, I think it would be a good idea to take a 15-minute break at this point. And I ask for that.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I believe we are ready now for the closing part of the argument by the House managers on the motion to dismiss.

Mr. LOTT. I believe under the agreement we entered into the next order of business, then, would be the vote on the motion by Senator Harkin to go into open session; is that correct?

Mr. LOTT. If it is appropriate at this point, I ask the Senators if they would remain at their desks so we can go through this vote, and I ask unanimous consent, since we are all here, to reduce the time for the vote from 15 minutes to 10 minutes.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move that we now go into closed session for the purpose of Senators debating the motion to dismiss.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that we take a 10-minute break for the purposes of closing the doors and preparing for the debate.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Congressional and Administrative action is needed to strengthen the U.S. maritime industry and level the playing field in the international shipping arena. This vital industry serves our nation's security by providing essential elements of our sealift capability--loyal crews and commercial ships. This sealift capability is required to project and sustain power abroad and preserve U.S. access to world trade. Two hundred years ago, protecting the U.S. merchant marine was one of the Navy's important missions. Today, the threat to the U.S. maritime industry is just as real. It may not come not from Barbary pirates, but the competitive disadvantages imposed by both this country and other countries are just as dangerous. Mr. President, the U.S. maritime industry has been the world leader in innovation over the last 30 years. It had to be, because it competes in the world arena with one hand tied behind its back. International maritime trade has become increasingly dominated by foreign flags-of- convenience. A number of small countries have decided to generate revenue by creating ship registries and tax havens that impose few responsibilities or costs on their users. Unfortunately, this has also resulted in poor compliance with international safety standards and evasion of pollution liability. America's fleet meets the most stringent safety standards and operates in a higher tax environment, and has steadily lost ground to these flag-convenience fleets. This situation is reaching the point where the U.S. commercial fleet's ability to meet our national security requirements may soon be in jeopardy. Mr. President, the solution to this problem has two parts. First, we must hold other countries accountable for providing reciprocity in access to maritime trade and meeting international standards for vessel safety, crew training, and preventing pollution. The United States places very few restrictions on the use of our ports to facilitate international trade. Some countries, such as China, however, have imposed unfair burdens on United States and other foreign vessels conducting business there in an effort to protect their own businesses. The FMC, under Chairman Hal Creel's leadership, appropriately moved to head off problems in Japan's ports during the 105th Congress and is increasingly concerned about the situations in China and Brazil. While our Nation encourages open competition in the commercial maritime sector, America only demands that it be fair and meet minimum standards for protecting our environment and our citizens. However, as a January 3, 1999, New York Times article reported, flag-of-convenience ship are using their foreign status and the lax oversight of their flag states to escape punishment for their intentional dumping of oil in the ocean not far from our coast. America should not allow the unscrupulous operation of unsafe ships with ill-trained crews to threaten the oceans, our coastlines, or our citizens. I challenge the Administration to aggressively combat these actions to the fullest extent of U.S. law. Under the leadership of Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John McCain, the 105th Congress provided the FMC with increased authority to address unfair foreign shipping practices. I invited the Administration to work with the 106th Congress to provide increased legislative authority to counter attempts by foreign-flag ships to escape punishment for such unconscionable behavior. Second, we must level the playing field for U.S. companies competing in the commercial maritime arena. On the financial side, U.S. shipping companies provide equal or higher quality service than their foreign competitors at a similar cost, yet foreign shipping companies are growing and U.S. shipping companies are shrinking. This happens because, unlike U.S. shipping companies, most foreign shipping companies pay little or no income taxes. In this capital intensive business, investments are flowing to those companies which provide a better return on investment, and the tax differential tilts this flow toward foreign shipping companies. This is why foreign shipping companies are buying their U.S. counterparts instead of the other way around. This Nation's tax policies should promote business growth, not stifle it. We need to level the playing field for U.S. shipping companies in the international marketplace. I look forward to working with Senator John Breaux to develop specific provisions. My colleague and friend shares an interest in maritime policy, and together we serve on both the Commerce Finance Committees. This provides us with an ability to shape maritime policy in the regulatory, tax, and trade environments. Mr. President, U.S. shipping companies can compete and succeed in the world's international trade marketplace when competition is fair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Mr. Chief Justice, we are ready momentarily to begin with the questioning period again. I believe the first question will come through Senator Daschle. I do want to say to our colleagues that any Senator is entitled to propound a question on both sides, and so we will give you every opportunity to do that. Again, it is our intent to go today not later than 4 o'clock, and if additional time is needed for questions, it will have to go over until Monday. We have some questions that have already been propounded that we would like to put to one side or the other, but at some point I think we will have a sense that maybe the basic questions have been asked. So if any Senator on either side feels strongly about a particular question, he or she may want to be thinking about how and when they insist that it be offered. But I think a lot of ground has been covered. I hope that within a reasonable period of time the questions that Senators have will be given and we will have a response, and then we will make a decision on how to proceed from there. I yield, Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I do have another question I will send to the desk momentarily, but I would like for the Senators to know that we have had some 104 or 105 questions now that have been asked. I believe that is correct--104. Senator Daschle and I conferred. We want to thank the Senators for their participation and their questions. We do want to make it clear we are not seeking questions. (Laughter.) So don't feel like you need to help us by sending them down. But under your rights as Senators, under the Senate Resolution 16 and the rules we are proceeding under, every and each Senator is entitled to submit a question if he or she feels it is important, but I hope that it will be one that you think really is essential that has not been touched on somewhere already in the answers to the questions and also would hope--and that the Record be made clear--that we, in a bipartisan way, have tried very hard to make sure that this proceeding here and the question period, and all we have done, has been fair both to the President's counsel and the House managers. And we will continue to work in that vein. With that observation, and if we do need to continue going forward with questions, we would have to give some consideration of taking a break and going longer, although I had indicated I hoped we could quit at 4. Maybe after this question and, if necessary, one or two more, we could end for the day and then get together and see if we need more time on Monday for additional questions. I send the next question to the desk.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, it now approaches the hour that we had indicated we would conclude our work on Saturday. There may still be some questions that Senators would like to have offered. I have talked to Senator Daschle. One suggestion made is that maybe on Monday we would ask that questions could be submitted for the Record in writing. I think that is a common practice. We don't want to cut it off. At this point, I would not be prepared to do that. But I would like to suggest that we go ahead and conclude our business today, and if there is a need by a Senator on either side to have another question, or two or three, we will certainly consult with each other and see how we can handle that, perhaps on Monday, and even see if it would be appropriate to prepare a motion with regard to being able to submit questions for the Record, which would be answered. We would not want to abuse that and cause that to be a protracted process. In view of the time spent here--in fact, we have had around 106 questions, and we are about 10 hours into this now--I think we should conclude for this Saturday. We will resume at 1 p.m. on Monday and continue in accordance with the provisions of S. Res. 16. I will update all Members as to the specific schedule when it becomes clear. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that in the Record following today's proceedings there appear a period of morning business to accommodate bills and statements that have been submitted during the day by Senators. I thank my colleagues for their attentiveness during the proceedings.

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. We will go approximately another hour, if questions are still available--and I assume they will be--and then we will break for about an hour for lunch.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.