Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I can announce now that there will be no further votes in the 105th Congress. This resolution just adopted provides for the convening of the 106th Congress at 12 noon on January 6, 1999. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, just briefly, I thank the distinguished President pro tempore for the job he has done and for his friendship and help. Truly, one of the most important accomplishments of this Congress was our armed services authorization bill, the Strom Thurmond authorization bill. It was a tough process, a long process, but we got it done largely because of his tenacity and the respect and reverence we all have for Senator Thurmond. And that led, of course, to the appropriations bill and its defense and military construction portions, and it contributed to the additional funds that were added in this omnibus appropriations bill for defense and intelligence for the future of our country. Thank you, Senator Thurmond, for all you did.

Mr. LOTT

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate House Concurrent Resolution 353, the adjournment resolution.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold one second, for one more unanimous consent request?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in this last day of the 105th Congress, I think it is appropriate that we take a little more time to express our appreciation and our admiration for our retiring Senators. I look down the list: Senator Bumpers of Arkansas; Senator Coats of Indiana; Senator Ford, the Democratic whip, of Kentucky; Senator Glenn, who will soon be taking another historic flight into space; and Senator Kempthorne, who I believe is also going to be taking flight into a new position of leadership and honor. This is a distinguished group of men who have been outstanding Senators, who have left their mark on this institution. I believe you could say in each case they have left the Senate a better place than it was when they came. Have we had our disagreements along the way? Sure, within parties and across party aisles. I have to take a moment to express my appreciation to each of these Senators. I especially want to thank Senator Ford for his cooperation in his position as whip. We worked together for a year and a half as the whip on our respective side of the aisle and we always had a very good relationship. Of course, I have already expressed my very close relationship for Senator Coats and for Senator Kempthorne. To all of these Senators, I want to extend my fondest farewell. As majority leader, I feel a responsibility to speak for all of us in bidding an official farewell to our five colleagues who are retiring this year. It was 1974 when Dale Bumpers left the governorship of Arkansas to take the Senate seat that had long been held by Senator Fulbright. There are several Senators in this Chamber today who, in 1974, were still in high school. Four terms in the Senate of the United States can be a very long time--but that span of nearly a quarter-century has not in the least diminished Senator Bumpers' enthusiasm for his issues and energy in advancing them. He has been a formidable debater, fighting for his causes with a tenacity and vigor that deserves the title of Razorback. It is a memorable experience to be on the receiving end of his opposition--whether the subject was the Space Station or, year after year, mining on public lands. Arkansas and Mississippi are neighbors, sharing many of the same problems. From personal experience, I know how Senator Bumpers has been an assiduous and effective advocate for his State and region. No one expects retirement from the Senate to mean inactivity for Senator Bumpers, whose convictions run too deep to be set aside with his formal legislative duties. All of us who know the sacrifices an entire family makes when a spouse or parent is in the Congress can rejoice for him, for Betty, and for their family, in the prospect of more time together in a well earned future. Senator Dan Coats and I have a bond in common which most Members of the Senate do not share. We both began our careers on Capitol Hill, not as Members, but as staffers. I worked for the venerable William Colmer of Mississippi, Chairman of the House Rules Committee, who left office in 1972 at the age of 82. Senator Coats worked for Dan Quayle, who came to Congress at the age of 27. Despite the differences in our situations back then, we both learned the congressional ropes from the bottom up. Which may be why we both have such respect for the twists and turns of the legislative process, not to mention an attentive ear to the views and concerns of our constituents. Now and then, a Senator becomes nationally known for his leadership on a major issue. Senator Coats has had several such issues. One was the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. Another was New Jersey's garbage, and whether it would be dumped along the banks of the Wabash. The garbage issue is still unresolved, but on other matters, his success has been the nation's profit. He has championed the American family, improved Head Start, kept child care free of government control, and helped prevent a federal takeover of health care. His crusade to give low-income families school choice has made him the most important education reformer since Horace Mann. His passionate defense of children before birth has been, to use an overworked phrase, a profile in courage. Senator Coats does have a secret vice. He is a baseball addict. On their honeymoon, he took Marcia to a Cubs game. And when he was a Member of the House, he missed the vote on flag-burning to keep a promise to his son to see the Cubs in the playoffs. To Dan, a commitment is a commitment. That is why he is national president of Big Brothers. And why, a few years ago, he kept a very important audience waiting for his arrival at a meeting here on the Hill. He had, en route, come across a homeless man, and spent a half-hour urging him to come with him to the Gospel Rescue Mission. Here in the Congress, we must always be in a hurry. But Senator Coats and his wife, Marcia, have known what is worth waiting for. They have been a blessing to our Senate family, and they will always remain a part of it. Senator Wendell Ford stands twelfth in seniority in the Senate, with the resignation of his predecessor, Senator Marlow Cook, giving him a six-day advantage over his departing colleague, Senator Bumpers. He came to Washington with a full decade of hands-on governmental experience in his native Kentucky. He had been a State senator, Lieutenant Governor, and Governor. With that background, he needed little time to make his mark in the Senate. In that regard, he reminds me of another Kentuckian who make a lasting mark on the Senate. Last month, I traveled to Ashland, the home of Henry Clay, to receive a medallion named after the man once known as Harry of the West. Senator Ford was a prior recipient of that award, and appropriately so. Henry Clay was a shrewd legislator, a tough bargainer, who did not suffer fools lightly. That description sounds familiar to anyone who has worked with Senator Ford. He can be a remarkably effective partisan. I can attest to that. There is a good reason why he has long been his party's second-in- command in the Senate. At the same time, he has maintained a personal autonomy that is the mark of a true Senator. He has been outspoken about his wish that his party follow the more moderate path to which he has long adhered. Senator Ford's influence has been enormous in areas like energy policy and commerce. Contemporary politics may be dependent upon quotable sound-bites and telegenic posturing, but he has held to an older and, in my opinion, a higher standard. One of the least sought-after responsibilities in the Senate is service on the Rules Committee. It can be a real headache. But it is crucial to the stature of the Senate. We all owe Senator Ford our personal gratitude for his long years of work on that Committee. His decisions there would not always have been my decisions; that is the nature of our system. But his work there has set a standard for meticulousness and gravity. All of us who treasure the traditions, the decorum, and the comity of the Senate will miss him. We wish him and Jean the happiness of finally being able to set their own hours, enjoy their grandchildren, and never again missing dinner at home because of a late-night session on the Senate floor. There are many ways to depart the Senate. Our colleague from Ohio, Senator John Glenn, will be leaving us in a unique fashion, renewing the mission to space which he helped to begin in 1962. In the weeks ahead, he will probably be the focus of more publicity, here and around the world, than the entire Senate has been all year long. It will be well deserved attention, and I know he accepts it, not for himself, but for America's space program. For decades now, he has been, not only its champion, but in a way, its embodiment. That is understandable, but to a certain extent, unfair. For his astronaut image tends to overshadow the accomplishments of a long legislative career. In particular, his work on the Armed Services Committee, the Commerce Committee, and our Special Committee on Aging has been a more far- reaching achievement than orbiting the earth. With the proper support and training, others might have done that, but Senator Glenn's accomplishments here in the Senate are not so easily replicated. This year's hit film, ``Saving Private Ryan,'' has had a tremendous impact on young audiences by bringing home to them the sacrifice and the suffering of those who fought America's wars. I think Senator Glenn has another lesson to teach them. For the man who will soon blast off from Cape Canaveral, as part of America's peaceful conquest of space--is the same Marine who, more than a half century ago, saw combat in World War II, and again in Korea. His mission may have changed, but courage and idealism endure. In a few days, along with Annie and the rest of his family, we will be cheering him again, as he again makes us proud of our country, proud of our space program, and proud to call him our friend and colleague. Senator Dirk Kempthorne came to us from Idaho only six years ago. He now returns amid the nearly universal expectation that he will be his State's next Governor. It will be a wise choice. None of us are surprised by his enormous popularity back home. We have come to know him, not just as a consummate politician, but as a thoughtful, decent, and caring man. This is a man who took the time to learn the names of the men and women who work here in the Capitol and in the Senate office buildings. In fact, his staff allots extra time for him to get to the Senate floor to vote because they know he will stop and talk to people on the way. During the memorial ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda for our two officers who lost their lives protecting this building, Senator Kempthorne noticed that the son of one of the officers, overwhelmed by emotion, suddenly left the room. Dirk followed him, and spent a half-hour alone with him, away from the cameras. The public doesn't see those things, but that's the kind of concern we expect from him. His willingness to share credit gave us our Unfunded Mandates Act and reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Law. And his eye for detail and pride in his own home State led to the transformation of that long, sterile corridor between the Capitol and the Dirksen and Hart office buildings. Now, as tourists ride the space-age mechanized subway, they enjoy the display of State flags and seals that form a patriotic parade. It delights the eye and lifts the spirit. If you've ever visited Idaho, known its people, and seen its scenic wonders, you don't have to wonder why he's leaving us early. You wonder, instead, why he ever left. Years ago, he explained his future this way: That he would know when it was time to leave the Senate when he stopped asking ``why'' and started saying ``because.'' We're going to miss him and Patricia, and no one needs to ask ``why.'' Even so, we know the Governor will be forceful spokesman on the Hill for all the governors. They could not have a better representative. The Senate could not have a better exemplar. We could not have a better friend. Mr. President, I would also like to pay tribute to two members of my Senate team who plan to leave us by the end of the year. As our Sergeant at Arms, Greg Casey holds one of the Senate's highest positions of trust and authority. It is an awesome job, overseeing the hundreds of employees who keep the Capitol in operation. There is also a ceremonial component to the position of Sergeant at Arms, and Greg has performed in that role admirably well. But behind the formalities lie enormous operational responsibilities. It is not a job for the weak of will. Greg's performance has set, for all future occupants of his office, a new standard of energy, efficiency, and spirit. By recognizing hard work and achievement at all levels, he has led the entire Capitol work force to become more professional, more modern, and more team-oriented. Before appointing him Sergeant at Arms, I had the benefit of his managerial skills as administrative officer to the Majority Leader. He helped me reassemble the office after Senator Dole moved on to other efforts. And before that, he had served for years as Chief of Staff to Senator Larry Craig of Idaho. That was a natural fit, for Greg is a classic Idahoan, like his State's two Senators, to whom he has been close since his college days. He is a doer, not a talker, and is undaunted by the challenges from which others shrink. He has done a great job for me, for the Senate, and for his country. One of his chief concerns has been the security of the Capitol. Even before the tragic events of last July, he had begun to enhance the safety of those who visit, and those who work in, this building. We thank Julia, his wife, and their little boy, Greg Jr., for their sacrifice of the family time that means so much to them. And we share their happiness that they will now have more time together. The second member of my team who will be leaving in the near future is Steve Seale, legal counsel to the Majority Leader. Steve came to Washington a little more than two years ago at my request--and gave up a seat in the Mississippi Senate to do so. Even more of a sacrifice was moving, with Miriam and their two little girls, Caitlin and Elise, from their home in Hattiesburg to the wilds of Northern Virginia. He has poured his heart into what can be a thankless task: guarding every line of the law, while telling those in authority what they cannot do. In official Washington today, no one needs to be reminded of how important those functions are. Steve has handled an array of judicial, legal, and constitutional issues for me; and I have not been alone in relying on his counsel. I have deeply appreciated his loyalty, but I have valued even more his willingness to put the law--in all its complexity and with all its restrictions and limitations--before all else, including the convenience of person or of party. Displayed on his desk is a hand-written note from his two daughters, which, with certain adjustments in spelling, reads like this: ``Dear Dad, come home for hugs and kisses.'' The Senate cannot beat that offer, and I do not begrudge Steve the opportunity to put family first. Indeed, many Members of Congress will envy him. There is a saying among persons who have been on my staff, all the way back to my early days in the House of Representatives. They say that, once you have worked for Lott, you always work for Lott. I take that as a compliment, and I'm taking this occasion to let Steve know that, in his case, it is going to apply for a long, long time. Mr. President, before we turn to other business, I should offer one final tribute. When the American people tune in to our televised proceedings, they often see, here beside me or elsewhere on the Senate floor, a lovely young woman, tall, blonde, and beautiful. Her name is Alison Carroll McSlarrow. What they cannot see is that she is smart, hard-working, savvy, dedicated, principled, caring, ingenious--a master of our legislative process, expert in our Senate rules, an astute advisor, and a persistent voice of conscience to do the right thing. She came to the Senate after teaching grade school. That experience both reflected and strengthened her interest in children. It helps to explain her opposition to the destructive policies that have for so long dominated federal education programs. As legislative assistant to Senator Dan Coats, as a Republican staffer in the Labor and Human Resources Committee--and as my chief floor assistant when I was the Majority Whip, she has had a major impact, not only on the processes we follow, but on the policies we have advanced. Indeed, her determination to protect the health care of the American family had a great deal to do with the defeat of the President's plan to bring that sector of the economy under government control. For the last two and a half years, she has been my deputy chief of staff. I have relied upon her for everything from vote counts to policy analysis, from parliamentary tactics to legislative strategy. In her office hangs a framed series of photographs, taken when she was seated next to me here. As I made some expansive gesture, I somehow knocked her in the head. Her composure never changed; mine did. She remained the consummate professional, doing her job above all else. Before the 106th Congress assembles in January, Alison and her husband, Kyle, Senator Coverdell's chief of staff, will have moved to Arizona, where he will be working for former Vice President Dan Quayle. It is hard to imagine my office without her. I will miss her expertise, of course, and the way she stands up to me more than anyone else on my staff. I will miss her good humor and her idealism. And the Senate will miss her more than I can say. She leaves with our gratitude, our admiration, and our love.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have to recognize some of my own staff members. Alison Carroll McSlarrow has been my deputy Chief of Staff for the past couple of years. She has done a wonderful job. I have tried to talk her out of getting married and then out of moving to Arizona. But Kyle McSlarrow, who worked with me a while, and now works with Senator Coverdell, swept her off her feet and now off to Arizona. I will never quite get over what he has done to me. They are a great and wonderful couple. Alison has come to be one of my most trusted aides. She is so competent. I have always been able to rely on her. I will miss her tremendously. I wanted to have an expression of my appreciation in the Record for her. My counsel, Steve Seale, will be going downtown to work with a law firm, which will remain nameless for now. He is a close friend from my own State of Mississippi. He was a naval officer and he was a State Senator and had an outstanding law practice. He left that to come and work for me over the past 3 years. He has done an outstanding job. I wish him the very best in the future. Last but not least, I want to especially recognize our Sergeant at Arms, Gregg Casey. Gregg had worked for, of course, our policy chairman, Larry Craig. He did a great job with him as Chief of Staff. He is a very close friend of Dirk Kempthorne, the other Senator from Idaho. He came to my aid when I became majority leader to try to help me get my office organized, as I was putting 3 separate staffs into one. He has a real talent for organization and getting an office set up where it can be administered properly. I had another emergency on my hands. We had a need for a new Sergeant at Arms and he agreed to not go back with Senator Craig and go into this position of Sergeant at Arms. Over the past 2, 2\1/2\ years, he has done a great job in my Senate office and as Sergeant at Arms. It has been difficult in many respects because there were problems that needed to be dealt with. He stepped up to the task. Of course, we had the very trying experience when we had two of our own security people here in the Capitol killed. That week, I'm sure, is one that has been indelibly marked in Gregg Casey's mind--the horror of it and all that went on. Actually, through it all, a family atmosphere came out of it, and everybody felt a closeness. He did a great job in the aftermath of that and provided real leadership. I know he is going to have many great opportunities in the future. I thank Gregg Casey for a job well done as Sergeant at Arms. This place is better because of the service he has given.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am very disappointed that there was an objection to the final passage of the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Act of 1998. This bipartisan consumer measure would have combated the growing and costly fraud of selling rebuilt salvage vehicles as undamaged used cars. This small, but important package would have saved consumers and automobile dealers more than $4 billion annually and would have kept millions of structurally unsafe vehicles off America's roads and highways. As my colleagues are aware, the practice of selling salvage vehicles without disclosing their damage history has become a serious national problem--aided by titling requirements that vary from state to state. A significant number of our colleagues in this chamber recognized that the status quo simply is not working. Something needed to be done to protect used car buyers and automobile dealers all across America from title washing. This Congress took action to quell this anti-consumer plague that has preyed on unsuspecting victims for far too long. Unfortunately, the Administration killed this much needed consumer protection measure. Mr. President, the House of Representatives, under the stewardship of Chairman Tom Bliley of the House Commerce Committee, and Congressman Rick White, the author of the House companion bill, passed most of the Senate's legislation on October 10 with bipartisan support. The House wisely chose to exclude a federal overlay system in addition to existing state branding procedures. This duplicative approach was strongly opposed by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators which represents the very people who would administer the provisions of any auto salvage legislation. Removing the proposed federal overlay was not taken lightly. The House took a serious look at a recent letter from the AAMVA which strongly objected to the concept of dual federal and state branding systems. Based on its analysis, the House concluded that the proposed federal overlay scheme would have created greater consumer confusion instead of achieving the legislation's intended purpose of enhancing information disclosure. At this time Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the October 5, 1998 letter from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators to House Commerce Committee Chairman Tom Bliley.

Mr. LOTT. The motor vehicle administrators, the real front line experts on this issue, carefully and thoughtfully outlined their practical concerns with the proposed federal overlay approach. First, the AAMVA letter noted that a federal overlay along with a separate state branding process undercuts the important objective of uniformity in the handling of salvage vehicles. Second, since participation in the federal standards is entirely voluntary for the states, the federal ``overlay'' approach serves no useful purpose. And, third, the letter pointed out that the federal overlay would create an unworkable, unmanageable system. The AAMVA also cautioned in its letter that ``the burden of interpreting and maintaining two sets of standards could discourage states from even attempting to implement the federal provisions. For the states that do attempt to implement, it will cause a ripple effect of confusion and errors among states that do not implement.'' In my view, these are compelling arguments against adopting the federal overlay approach that was added when the bill passed the Senate on October 2. Since the legislation was reported by the Senate Commerce Committee in November of last year, a large number of changes were made to the bill in an effort to address expressed concerns. Again, I would emphasize that the final title branding legislation included a number of significant changes to make the bill even more pro-consumer and to provide states with maximum flexibility. It closed the gaps that exist between conflicting state vehicle titling laws that allow dishonest rebuilders to perpetuate their fraudulent schemes without the need for a complicated, redundant, and burdensome federal overlay framework. The bipartisan compromise package included: A salvage threshold that was lowered from 80 percent to 75 percent. A provision that allows states to cover any vehicle, regardless of age. A provision that grants state Attorneys General the ability to sue on behalf of citizens who are victimized by rebuilt salvage fraud and recover monetary judgments for damages that citizens may have suffered. With respect to the bill's ``prohibited acts,'' the Senate bill replaced the House's ``knowingly and willfully'' standard with a ``knowingly'' standard. Two new prohibited acts, one related to making a flood disclosure and the other related to moving a vehicle or title in interstate commerce for the purpose of avoiding the bill's requirements. Flexibility for the states to provide additional disclosures to their citizens regarding the damage history of vehicles; synonyms of the defined terms that a conforming state could not use in connection with a vehicle were deleted. A provision that allows a state to establish a lesser percentage threshold for salvage vehicles if it so chooses. In other words, a state could set its threshold below the 75 percent level and still be in compliance with the provisions of the bill. Some consumer groups and some attorneys general advocated that states should be able to set their thresholds lower if they so desire. In the interest of compromise, we agreed to adopt that position. The package that I just outlined clearly indicates that the supporters of the legislation proceeded in good faith to reach a reasonable compromise for an effective bill. A number of changes were adopted a long the way in effort to protect used car consumers from title laundering. Equally important, the changes preserved the right of the states to determine what is in the best interests of their citizens. While I commend my colleagues in both chambers and from both sides of the aisle for passing versions of this important consumer protection legislation, I again want to express my regret that the Administration chose to oppose the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Act. Now, instead of improving the hodgepodge of state titling laws, the Administration allows unscrupulous auto rebuilders to launder car and truck titles so they bear no indication of a vehicle's damage history. Perpetuating a costly fraud. A $4 billion annual consumer swindle. Instead of endorsing this pro-disclosure measure and protecting Americans from title fraud, the Administration has allowed more wrecks on wheels to be put back on our roads and highways.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to express my personal disappointment that S. 2180, the Superfund Recycling Equity Act, was not enacted into law by this Congress. The Lott-Daschle scrap recycling bill was cosponsored by 64 Senators and over 300 members of the House. It was strongly supported by the Administration, the environmental community and the scrap recycling industry. Mr. President, the odds for success don't get much better than this. S. 2180 would have provided much needed liability relief to those who collect scrap metal, paper, glass, plastic and textiles and arrange for it to be recycled. These are people who should not be held responsible for the pollution of a Superfund site. The Administration agrees. A majority in the Congress agrees. The environmental community agrees. This may be the one and only item within the scope of Superfund reform that has the unanimous support of all parties! That's why, Mr. President, every comprehensive Superfund bill since 1994 has contained virtually the same language as is found in S. 2180. The same agreements, the same exemptions and the same relief. I believe in recycling and in the American businesses that recycle. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle do too, and that's why we have come as far as we have towards bringing relief to this industry. No one in this Chamber would argue that it's better to make new aluminum cans than to recycle the old ones. No one would say that used cans should go to the county landfill while new resources go towards making new cans. But that is just what this body is saying by failing to act on this legislation: Recyclers should be held liable for polluting a site because they provided the materials that created a product that someone else misused in an environmentally damaging way. Is Congress content to let this stand? Should we continue to hold these innocent parties liable simply because the technical legal fix is a stand-alone bill excerpted from a comprehensive context? Mr. President, I understand the desires of Chairmen Chafee, Bliley and Shuster to pass real comprehensive reform. I have always supported their efforts to do so. However, I cannot believe that moving the recycling provisions separately endangers their ability to do a comprehensive bill. The recycling piece has never been the reason for fixing Superfund--and it has certainly never held back progress on a comprehensive bill. Recycling is, given the scope, a very minor part of the total package. Minor, but eminently important to those who continue to be forced into funding cleanups for which they are not responsible. Mr. President, I am disappointed that some in the business community would rather see no action on Superfund than allow S. 2180's almost 400 Congressional cosponsors to realize a tiny step forward. There are over 2,600 recycling facilities nationwide who suffer because of this ``scorch the earth'' mentality. It is indeed a tragedy, Mr. President, that we cannot recognize this common ground, agree on a solution and move on. Mr. President, I hope that in the 106th Congress, we will take a look at Superfund with new eyes. I know we can find ways to provide American businesses--both large and small--some relief. I know we can actually get some clean up done, instead of pouring federal and private sector money into lawyers' pockets. Let's make sure that the parties who mess up are the parties that clean up. That's the bottom line and the goal we all strive towards regardless of philosophy or party. Mr. President, I would like to thank those members of the House and Senate who have been such an integral part of moving S. 2180 forward. First and foremost, I would like to thank the Minority Leader, Mr. Daschle, who has been a great partner and advocate throughout the process of moving this bill. It is good to know that we can team up on issues like these--I hope to continue to do so in the future. I would also like to thank Congressman Tauzin, our House sponsor, for all of his efforts. Without a concerted push from both chambers, it is doubtful that we would have come as close as we did. I would also like to thank the Speaker, the White House and the EPA for their interest and support on this issue. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to thank the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI) for its input. Its membership were instrumental in highlighting the plight of recyclers to their Congressional representatives. I hope that they are willing to join us in putting a shoulder to the grindstone again next Congress. Thank you.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 312 submitted earlier today by Senator Domenici.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Internet Tax Freedom Act was included in the 1998 Omnibus Appropriations bill. Congress wants a limited moratorium, accompanied by a careful review of all Internet and electronic commerce tax issues. This will give Congress the opportunity to properly evaluate state and local government interstate taxation, federal taxation and trade treatment of the Internet and electronic commerce. By enacting this measure, Congress also declared that the Internet should be free of any new federal taxes during the moratorium. Mr. President, present federal law imposes no tax specifically on the Internet, including domain name registrations. However, with several of my colleagues, I have become aware of a pertinent U.S. Federal Court case, Thomas et al v. National Science Foundation et al. In this case, the Court recently declared that Section 8003--Ratification of Internet Fees--of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of FY98 did sanction what had been previously found by the Court to be an unconstitutional tax on domain name registrations. I want to take this opportunity to state for the record that Section 8003 was never intended by Congress to ratify a tax on the Internet, but only to address a fee for the Intellectual Infrastructure Fund. Let me be clear. Section 8003 was not an authorization of any tax, unconstitutional or otherwise. Mr. President, I am pleased this Congress rightly recognized the importance of the Internet and electronic commerce to America's economy, and the need to eliminate uncertainty and confusion surrounding Internet taxation policies. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2263, which is at the desk.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I commend Congressman McHale and a number of House Members that took the time and stayed committed to this until we did get it accomplished. From what I have learned about it, it is the right thing to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (H.R. 4110) to provide a cost-of-living adjustment in rates of compensation paid to veterans with service-connected disabilities, to make various improvements in education, housing, and cemetery programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That House agree to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4110) entitled ``An Act to provide a cost- of-living adjustment in rates of compensation paid to veterans with service-connected disabilities, to make various improvements in education, housing, and cemetery programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes'', with the following amendments: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment of the Senate, insert the following:

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the amendments of the House.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 313, submitted earlier by Senators Thomas and Enzi.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Journal of Proceedings be approved to date.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator DeWine and commend him for his dedicated effort in this area. He felt that a wrong had been committed and that people had suffered because of no mistake of their own. Something had to be done to right the wrong. This is the bill that has been known as the Ricky Ray Relief Fund. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 707, H.R. 1023.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 1364) to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful Federal reports. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1364) entitled ``An Act to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful Federal reports'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur with the amendment of the House, with a further amendment by Senator McCain, which is at the desk.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I share the sentiments of my colleagues from Louisiana. I am frustrated over the Senate's inability to complete this legislation. Indeed, he and I have championed this bipartisan effort for some years now. I will resume our joint efforts early in the next Congress to secure final ratification of this critical Agreement. U.S. participation in the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement and the elimination of foreign subsidies is essential. U.S. commercial shipyards cannot successfully compete with the treasuries of other nations. Of course, our implementing legislation must also make it clear that our vital Jones Act interests and our national security prerogatives will never be compromised. The implementing legislation developed in this Congress represents a consensus product with input for many Senators who carefully weighted and balanced these important objectives of OECD. The legislation was reported by the Finance Committee on two separate occasions and by the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on yet another. It enjoys the strong support of both Chairman and vast majority of their Committees. Let me be clear: Navy ships are unequivocally exempted from coverage by this Agreement in fact this legislation gives unlimited authority of the Secretary of Defense to exempt from coverage of any other vessels deemed necessary for national security purposes. Similarly, extraordinary steps were taken to protect our Jones Act. That is why this legislation received the strong endorsement from the vast majority of the Jones Act shipbuilding and ship operating companies. On a final note, I hope our OECD Shipbuilding Agreement parties will take note of my intention and commitment to move this legislation early next before taking any action on their own which might forever compromise this historic opportunity to rationalize the global shipbuilding market.