Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are working on a unanimous consent agreement now that we hope we can get approved, which would allow us to get to a conclusion and a final vote on the Internet tax freedom bill. I commend all who have been involved, including Senators McCain, Dorgan and Wyden. I believe we can actually get to a conclusion. There has been the possibility that it would be tangled up in other matters, but I think maybe we have an agreement that will allow us to complete that.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Again, I say that I appreciate the help from Senator Leahy, and I also urge that we do this as soon as we can, because, as you know, at this late stage of the game, sometimes people come in with unrelated issues that start causing problems. Let's do it as quickly as we can. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. That is a reasonable request. I will withhold on that. I had believed that we cleared it with both sides of the aisle, but some Members may not have had a chance to check on it.

Mr. LOTT. I will do that. Let me just say again that I hope we can get this cleared because it looks like, after a lot of hard and good work by a number of Senators-- Senator Hatch worked very hard on this--that we are now in the position of being able to move the music licensing issue, the copyright bill, the international property issue, the international treaty; those are three major achievements that I thought a week ago we probably could not get done. They are all interrelated, actually. I hope we can get clearance to move forward on these issues. This is a reasonable request, and I withhold the unanimous consent request at this time.

Mr. LOTT. Yes.

Mr. LOTT. I yield to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, may proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 40, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag; further, that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided on the resolution, with no amendments or motions in order, and at the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the resolution.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, as amended, the motion to lay on the table be agreed to, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. Again, Madam President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his cooperation and his allowing us to go ahead and proceed quickly on this very important matter. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. I renew my unanimous consent request that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 505, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. LOTT. Senator Hatch has a substitute amendment at the desk. I ask for its consideration.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I will withhold the unanimous consent request, but I would once again like to urge my colleagues to agree to this. This is a very important bill that work has been done on for a period of months, and it also is connected to the music licensing issue which has been worked out. It has been extremely tedious, working with all the interested parties, but they have been responsible, they have agreed, and I want to commend and thank all of those who worked with us and helped us reach agreement with music licensing, including the Restaurant Association, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and the writers who have been involved in this music issue, including BMI and ASCAP and others. They have all given more than they wanted to, but I think we have come to a reasonable agreement. And then also, it is connected to the treaty with regard to intellectual property. So I will withhold at this time, but I hope Senators will not begin putting a hold on this very important legislation because of unrelated issues that we probably are going to get resolved in the next 2 days anyway.

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

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

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Leahy for completing his remarks so we could proceed with this unanimous consent agreement. This is with regard to S. 505, the copyright bill. I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 505 and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a civil action commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on September 14, 1998, by the District of Columbia and a group of approximately fifty residents of the District. The action seeks a declaratory judgment that residents of the District of Columbia have a constitutional right to vote in elections for Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and also asks the court to ensure that Congress fashion a remedy for this alleged deprivation of voting rights. The lead defendants are the Secretary of Commerce and the United States, who are being represented by the Department of Justice. The complaint also names as defendants the Secretary of the Senate, Gary Sisco, and the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, Greg Casey, as well as the Clerk and the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, because of their roles in paying and certifying the election of Members and in controlling access to the two Chambers. This resolution authorizes the Senate Legal Counsel to represent the Secretary of the Senate and the Senate Sergeant at Arms in this matter to seek dismissal of the case against them. The Legal Counsel will argue that the Senate officers are not proper defendants in this matter.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join my colleagues, Senators Landrieu and Murkowski, in introducing the Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act. Mr. President, since the inception of the oil and gas program on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), states and coastal communities have sought a greater share of the benefits from development. And why shouldn't they? These communities provide the infrastructure, public services, manpower and support industries necessary to sustain this development. Currently, the majority of OCS revenues are funneled into the Federal Treasury where they are used to pay for various federal programs and to reduce the deficit. While funding programs and reducing the deficit are certainly important, I believe that some percentage of the revenues should be reinvested in that which makes them possible. Our bill does that. The Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act diverts one-half of the OCS revenues from the Federal Treasury to coastal states and communities for a multitude of programs: air and water quality monitoring, wetlands protection, coastal restoration and shoreline protection, land acquisition, infrastructure, public service needs, state park and recreation programs and wildlife conservation. This bill allows states and communities to use these funds in whatever manner they deem appropriate. In Pascagoula, for example, authorities might choose to restore and secure the shoreline where years of sea traffic have taken their toll. Further north in Vancleave, they may choose instead to refurbish the roads and bridges that carry the heavy machinery coming and going from the coast. This bill provides a framework within which these localities can make the right decisions for their citizens and environment. Mr. President, I have been working on this issue for many, many years. As a coast dweller myself, I know the impact that the oil and gas industry can have on communities and the importance of reinvestment in these areas. This is not to say that the industry mistreats the states; on the contrary, they work very hard to comply with stringent environmental regulations and to take care of the community as best they can. The OCS Policy Committee said in 1993 that, despite the oil industry's best efforts, ``OCS development still can affect community infrastructure, social services and the environment in ways that cause concerns among residents of the coastal states and communities.'' I know that there is no way to totally eliminate this impact on coastal communities. I also know that, while the benefits of a healthy OCS program are felt nationally, the infrastructure, environmental and social costs are felt locally. Our bill would put money back into the communities that need it most. It would also put money back into the environmental resources of the area. Exploration for non-renewable resources and stewardship of coastal resources are not mutually exclusive, but must be carefully balanced for both to be sustained. It is important that our wetlands, fisheries and water resources are taken into consideration and afforded adequate protection. In addition to propping up the states and coastal communities, our bill also provides funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Over 30 years ago, Congress set up this fund to address the American public's desire for more parks and recreational facilities. This bill makes the program self-sufficient, providing secure funding from the OCS revenues. This is an investment in our future--our land, our resources and our recreational enjoyment. Mr. President, our bill makes yet another investment with these OCS revenues--an investment in fish and wildlife programs. With the inclusion of OCS revenues, the amount of money available for state programs would nearly double. This is money that can be used to increase populations and improve habitat for fish and wildlife. It could even be used for wildlife education programs. Mr. President, this bill was carefully crafted to strike a balance between the needs and interests of the oil and gas industry, the states, and the environmental and conservation groups. It's a good package that will benefit all Americans, not just those who live and work in coastal areas. It will benefit hunters and anglers. It will benefit bird watchers and campers. It will benefit all Americans who take solace in the fact that the oil industry is taking care of the communities that support it. I appreciate the hard work of my colleagues and look forward to advancing this important legislation in the 106th Congress.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a pro se civil case brought against the CIA and other defendants by a state prisoner. Last month, the plaintiff served a subpoena for documents upon Senator John F. Kerry, apparently because of the Senator's former role as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations of the Foreign Relations Committee. After Senator Kerry objected to the subpoena and advised the plaintiff that the documents he sought were privileged by the Speech or Debate Clause, the plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to compel Senator Kerry to produce the documents. Accordingly, this resolution would authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to represent Senator Kerry in connection with this subpoena and to respond to the motion to compel.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join my colleagues, Senators Landrieu and Murkowski, in introducing the Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act. Mr. President, since the inception of the oil and gas program on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), states and coastal communities have sought a greater share of the benefits from development. And why shouldn't they? These communities provide the infrastructure, public services, manpower and support industries necessary to sustain this development. Currently, the majority of OCS revenues are funneled into the Federal Treasury where they are used to pay for various federal programs and to reduce the deficit. While funding programs and reducing the deficit are certainly important, I believe that some percentage of the revenues should be reinvested in that which makes them possible. Our bill does that. The Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act diverts one-half of the OCS revenues from the Federal Treasury to coastal states and communities for a multitude of programs: air and water quality monitoring, wetlands protection, coastal restoration and shoreline protection, land acquisition, infrastructure, public service needs, state park and recreation programs and wildlife conservation. This bill allows states and communities to use these funds in whatever manner they deem appropriate. In Pascagoula, for example, authorities might choose to restore and secure the shoreline where years of sea traffic have taken their toll. Further north in Vancleave, they may choose instead to refurbish the roads and bridges that carry the heavy machinery coming and going from the coast. This bill provides a framework within which these localities can make the right decisions for their citizens and environment. Mr. President, I have been working on this issue for many, many years. As a coast dweller myself, I know the impact that the oil and gas industry can have on communities and the importance of reinvestment in these areas. This is not to say that the industry mistreats the states; on the contrary, they work very hard to comply with stringent environmental regulations and to take care of the community as best they can. The OCS Policy Committee said in 1993 that, despite the oil industry's best efforts, ``OCS development still can affect community infrastructure, social services and the environment in ways that cause concerns among residents of the coastal states and communities.'' I know that there is no way to totally eliminate this impact on coastal communities. I also know that, while the benefits of a healthy OCS program are felt nationally, the infrastructure, environmental and social costs are felt locally. Our bill would put money back into the communities that need it most. It would also put money back into the environmental resources of the area. Exploration for non-renewable resources and stewardship of coastal resources are not mutually exclusive, but must be carefully balanced for both to be sustained. It is important that our wetlands, fisheries and water resources are taken into consideration and afforded adequate protection. In addition to propping up the states and coastal communities, our bill also provides funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Over 30 years ago, Congress set up this fund to address the American public's desire for more parks and recreational facilities. This bill makes the program self-sufficient, providing secure funding from the OCS revenues. This is an investment in our future--our land, our resources and our recreational enjoyment. Mr. President, our bill makes yet another investment with these OCS revenues--an investment in fish and wildlife programs. With the inclusion of OCS revenues, the amount of money available for state programs would nearly double. This is money that can be used to increase populations and improve habitat for fish and wildlife. It could even be used for wildlife education programs. Mr. President, this bill was carefully crafted to strike a balance between the needs and interests of the oil and gas industry, the states, and the environmental and conservation groups. It's a good package that will benefit all Americans, not just those who live and work in coastal areas. It will benefit hunters and anglers. It will benefit bird watchers and campers. It will benefit all Americans who take solace in the fact that the oil industry is taking care of the communities that support it. I appreciate the hard work of my colleagues and look forward to advancing this important legislation in the 106th Congress.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is about to act on H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. I introduced companion legislation, S. 2525, last week with 7 co-sponsors. Last Friday, the House International Relations Committee marked up the legislation and made only minor, technical changes. On October 5, the House passed H.R. 4655 by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 360 to 38. That vote, and our vote in several moments, is a strong demonstration of Congressional support for a new policy toward Iraq--a policy that overtly seeks the replacement of Saddam Hussein's regime through military and political support for the Iraq opposition. The United States has many means at its disposal to support the liberation of Iraq. At the height of the Cold War, we support freedom fighters in Asia, Africa and Latin America willing to fight and die for a democratic future. We can and should do the same now in Iraq. The Clinton Administration regularly calls for bipartisanship in foreign policy. I support them when I can. Today, we see a clear example of a policy that has the broadest possible bipartisan support. I know the Administration understands the depth of our feeling on this issue. I think they are beginning to understand the strategic argument in favor of moving beyond containment to a policy of ``rollback.'' Containment is not sustainable. Pressure to lift sanctions on Iraq is increasing--despite Iraq's seven years of refusal to comply with the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire. Our interests in the Middle East cannot be protected with Saddam Hussien in power. Our legislation provides a roadmap to achieve our objective. This year, Congress has already provided $5 million to support the Iraqi political opposition. We provided $5 million to establish Radio Free Iraq. We will provide additional resources for political support in the FY 1999 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, including $3 million for the Iraqi National Congress. Enactment of this bill will go farther. It requires the President to designate at least one Iraqi opposition group to receive U.S. military assistance. It defines eligibility criteria such a group or groups must meet. Many of us have ideas on how the designation process should work. I have repeatedly stated that the Iraqi National Congress has been effective in the past and can be effective in the future. They represent the broadest possible base of the opposition. There are other groups that are currently active inside Iraq: the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the Kurdish Democratic Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The State Department seems to believe there are more than 70 opposition groups, many of which do not meet the criteria in H.R. 4655. Many barely even exist or have no political base. They should not be considered for support. We should also be very careful about considering designation of groups which do not share our values or which are simply creations of external forces or exile politics, such as the Iraqi Communist Party or the Iraqi National Accord. I appreciate the work we have been able to do with the Administration on this legislation. But we should be very clear about the designation process. We intend to exercise our oversight responsibility and authority as provided in section 4(d) and section 5(d). I do not think the Members of Congress, notified pursuant to law, will agree to any designation that we believe does not meet the criteria in section 5 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. This is an important step. Observers should not misunderstand the Senate's action. Even though this legislation will pass without controversy on an unanimous voice vote, it is a major step forward in the final conclusion of the Persian Gulf war. In 1991, we and our allies shed blood to liberate Kuwait. Today, we are empowering Iraqis to liberate their own country.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I don't see any problem with that. I believe we probably should have asked that. I will amend it to include that.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, to clarify, we will have not more than 45 minutes of debate on the anti-nepotism bill. There will not be a recorded vote on that, and then not later than Thursday --but hopefully Wednesday--we can move these judicial nominations--the three I mentioned, plus William Fletcher of the Ninth Circuit court. So we have had the last vote for the day, and we will have this debate and perhaps some other wrap-up business. But there will be no further recorded votes during the day. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. That was very much an implied hint.

Mr. LOTT. I believe it will be better from a scheduling standpoint; therefore, we can advise Members what they can expect for the remainder of the evening and we can get this legislation completed. Then we will be able to go to the Fletcher nomination tomorrow.