Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I intend to move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table.

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator would like to use the remainder of his time, I will use leader time to conclude debate and move to table the amendment.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before I do that, I want to yield myself such time as I may consume out of leader time. I will be very brief. Mr. President, when I became majority leader 2 and a half years ago, this issue was pending before the Senate and it had caused a lot of problems and some difficulties in trying to decide how to deal with it. After a period of weeks and months, we came to the conclusion that we did need a minimum wage increase at that point, but with a lot of small business tax provisions being included. And they helped to mitigate the effect on small business men and women and the jobs they create in particular. But we had a minimum wage increase the year before last. We had a minimum wage increase last year. This increase, in my opinion, would be bad for the economy, bad for business, and bad for job creation. I would like to just cite you two examples to think about. I have a son, first of all, who is a small businessman. And he employs people at the entry level, people who do not have high school educations--unwed mothers, people who are desperate to get a start, to get a job. And he gives them that opportunity. A lot of them go on to wind up being supervisors and owners of their own companies and create jobs. They live the American dream. But I had occasion to hear comments from one lady--I believe she was from Marietta, GA--named Harriet Cane. She owns a Sweet Life Restaurant, which she describes as a very small dessert and luncheon cafe. It seats 45 people. As a result of the last increase in the minimum wage, she reduced her staff from 16 to 10, by attrition primarily, raised prices modestly, and had to increase her own hours on the job to 16 a day. And here is her exact quote: I will tell you this, that if the next increase does go through, what will happen to my store. Bottom line: my doors will close. I've talked with my CPA. We've tried to be creative. We've tried to find a way to handle the increase in payroll that it would represent. As a little shop, I have no option. I just want the world and the communities to understand that this is a reality and not just rhetoric. Also, a very impressive statement was given on that occasion when I heard Harriet Cane by a gentleman from Texas named Jose Cuevas. Jose Cuevas came with no prepared statement, but he spoke from the heart. He and his wife, he said, have lived the American dream. He is a Hispanic restaurant owner in south Texas who is approximately 44 years old. And he and his wife, at the ages of 22 and 20, saved money and worked really hard so they could buy their first store. This is what he had to say: It became a dream. We now have four locations. We have $2.6 million worth of sales. We have seen a lot of people come through our door, and a lot of good people. They have all left something. They have all gone on to better things. I think of how this minimum wage will affect other people's dreams of owning their own companies, their own restaurants. I was fortunate enough that I and my wife worked side by side with two other employees until we earned a little bit more and could hire extra people. But at $6 or even $5.50 an hour, it will make it almost impossible. Our last raise in the minimum wage cost us $60,000 in labor costs. In conclusion he said, So I urge you to continue to fight the battle for us, because I believe it's true and right. America is built on small business owners, just like all of us that go out every day, work hard, and create jobs so that others could live the American dream like we have. Mr. President, I think this is the wrong action at the wrong time. The people who will be hurt the most are the people that well- intentioned Senators really want to help, because they will wind up not getting an increase in the minimum wage, they will wind up with no job. I urge the Senate to vote to table this amendment. I now move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will immediately resume consideration of S. 1301, the Consumer Bankruptcy Protection Act, with Senator Reed being recognized to offer an amendment under a 1-hour time agreement. Following that debate, Senator Kennedy will be recognized to offer an amendment regarding minimum wage under a 2-hour time agreement. At 12:30 p.m. the Senate will recess until 2:15 to allow the two party conferences to meet. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15 there will be 5 minutes for closing remarks on the Kennedy amendment prior to a vote on or in relation to the amendment. Following that vote, there will be up to four additional votes occurring in stacked sequence with minimal debate time between each vote. Those votes, in their respective order, will include the two Feingold amendments regarding attorney's fees and filing fees, the Reed amendment regarding underwriting standards, and the cloture vote on the child custody bill previously scheduled at 4:30. I am still hopeful that we can come to some agreement on amendments and time so that we can go to the child custody bill without further cloture votes. But failing that, we will go forward with that vote at 4:30. Further votes could occur into the evening as the Senate attempts to complete action on the bankruptcy bill. If we do not get to final passage tonight, then we expect that to be probably the first vote on Wednesday. As a reminder to Senators, second-degree amendments to the child custody bill must be filed by 3:30 p.m. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I understand there is a joint resolution at the desk due for its second reading.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate will be in a period for morning business until 2 p.m. I know there are Senators who wish to speak during that time. Senator Craig is here. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1301, which is the Consumer Bankruptcy Protection Act. As announced previously, there will be no rollcall votes during today's session out of respect for the Jewish holiday. Members are reminded that a cloture motion was filed on Friday to the committee substitute to the Child Custody Protection Act. Therefore, Members will have until 1 p.m. today to file first-degree amendments. The next rollcall vote will occur at approximately 2:20 p.m. tomorrow on or in relation to the Kennedy minimum wage amendment. Further votes are expected to be stacked following the minimum wage vote and then continue into the evening as the Senate attempts to complete action on the bankruptcy bill. All Members will be notified as to the time and number of votes during Tuesday's session as that information becomes available. Again, we will have a vote or votes, possibly as many as two or three, beginning at 2:20 p.m. and other votes in the afternoon, plus we will have, hopefully, final passage on bankruptcy reform and the cloture vote on child custody. Tuesday morning, we will announce the schedule for the remainder of the week as best we can determine it, but that takes a lot of cooperation from Members on both sides of the aisle. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President, and congratulations to you. I understand one of your sons was married this past weekend, and we wish him much happiness in the future.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I had earlier made a unanimous consent request to bring up the FAA issue, now known as the Wendell Ford National Air Transportation System Improvement Act. This is a bill we really need to get done before we leave. If we don't get it cleared, cloture will take so much time, we may wind up not being able to complete this bill. It is important for airports, air passengers, the airline industry, the entire country. Again, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, proceed to the consideration of S. 2279, the National Air Transportation System Improvement Act. I further ask that during the pendency of S. 2279 only relevant amendments be in order to the bill.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are still consulting with both sides to see if we will be able to go forward this morning. It is Thursday morning and it seems to me this would be a good time to make some legislative progress on the people's business. We had great difficulty yesterday, trying to schedule votes around Senators' own interests which I thought, in many instances, were inappropriate. I urge my colleagues to not put their own conveniences over the interests of the people's business or their other 99 colleagues. Also, while there are obviously distractions and disagreements on what should be the business of the Senate, there are some things that we can do and should do. Unfortunately, yesterday we were not able to even go forward with debate because we could not get an agreement as to how to proceed on the issues. We have a unanimous consent agreement that we reached last Thursday that seemed to be fair and satisfactory to one and all on how to proceed on the bankruptcy reform legislation, including, at the insistence of the Senator from Massachusetts, a vote on a minimum wage. We agreed that we would have a vote as soon as we took up the bankruptcy bill, we would have 2 hours of debate on minimum wage and then a vote. The Senator indicated he had hoped we would do that in the morning, rather than late at night, and we have wanted to try to accommodate that. But when we said, OK, good, Thursday morning, we will start at 9:30, we will do the debate, have a vote at 11:30 on minimum wage, he indicated he didn't want to do that. So I don't know. I understand maybe he has a press conference at the White House, but he has to make a decision here. You know, are we going to go for press conferences, or are we going to go for the vote on something he says is very important to him, the minimum wage issue? I assume he will be here later and we will get something worked out as to how to proceed on that. In the meanwhile, I hope we can go ahead and go forward with bankruptcy, bankruptcy amendments. We have a list that we agreed to, amendments that are not subject to second-degree. There was a misunderstanding about one of them, and the sponsor of that amendment has very graciously agreed to not offer that amendment, Senator Hatch, on the intellectual properties issue. And there are some other controversial issues that we are going to work together on in a bipartisan way. So I hope we would try to make some progress on that. Senator Durbin is here, one of the sponsors of the bankruptcy reform bill. Senator Grassley is right here ready to go. So as soon as we can get a confirmation that we were able to get together on that, we will make that announcement to Members. I might say, we should expect votes on amendments throughout the day. And, from 2 to 6 this afternoon, we will have the debate on the partial-birth abortion ban veto override. And then we hope to come back to the bankruptcy after that, and then have a couple of votes tonight on amendments--one or two or three, whatever--that we can stack, so that Members will know when those votes would occur. Let me read here now the unanimous consent that we have worked out.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senate, I thank the rabbi for being with us this morning and for his prayer. We know this is a holy season for those of the Jewish faith, and we are pleased that you would join us and give us your prayer and ask for the Lord's blessings.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Journal of Proceedings be approved, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be waived, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LOTT. I did want to move to table and ask for the yeas and nays. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation getting this time agreed to. Mr. President, before I yield the floor to the managers of the legislation, I do want to take just a moment of leader time to make a plea for Senators, once again, to consider very carefully how they will vote this afternoon on the partial-birth abortion ban issue. The vote will be close. We need 67 Senators to override that veto. I believe there is no more important issue that we will vote on this entire year. I don't see how any Senator can defend this procedure. I took the time while I was home, about a year ago, to talk to Dr. Julius Bosco, the OB/GYN who delivered both of my own children. Originally from Brooklyn, NY, he was in the Air Force as a doctor, came to Keesler Air Force Base, married a local girl, and we couldn't get rid of him--he stayed. He is a great doctor and a great man. I asked him, Dr. Bosco, are there any circumstances at any time, any justification for this procedure being used? And he said, ``Never.'' Three Senators hold the results of this veto override in their hands, and it will weigh on their conscience. I hope that the Senate will override this veto. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to S. 1301 under the provisions of the consent agreement of September 11. I further ask that at 2 p.m., the bill be laid aside and there be 4 hours for debate, equally divided, on the veto message to accompany the partial-birth abortion bill, with speakers alternating between the proponents and opponents. I further ask that at 6 p.m. the Senate resume consideration of S. 1301. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, September 18, there be 1 hour for debate, equally divided, on the abortion veto message and a vote occur at 9:30 a.m. on the question: Shall the bill pass, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, our manager is on his way to proceed with this.

Mr. LOTT. I now call for regular order with respect to the child custody bill.

Mr. LOTT

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

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the attendance of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, over the past three decades, concern for our environment and natural resources has grown--as has the desire to recycle and reuse. You may be surprised to learn that one major environmental statue actually creates an impediment to recycling. Superfund has created this impediment, although unintended by the law's authors. Because of the harm that is being done to the recycling effort by the unintended consequence of law, the distinguished Minority Leader, Mr. Daschle, and I introduced The Superfund Recycling Equity Act (S. 2180). This bill removes Superfund's recycling impediments and increases America's recycling rates. We had one and only one purpose in introducing the Superfund Recycling Equity Act--to remove from the liability loop those who collect and ship recyclables to a third party site. The bill is not intended to plow new Superfund ground, nor is it intended to revamp existing Superfund law. That task is appropriately left to comprehensive reform, a goal that I hope is achievable in the 106th Congress. While the bill proposes to amend Superfund, Mr. President, it is really a recycling bill. Recycling is not disposal and shipping for recycling is not arranging for disposal--it is a relatively simple clarification, but one that is necessary to maintain a successful recycling effort nationwide. Without this clarification, America will continue to fall short of its recycling goal. S. 2180 was negotiated in 1993 between representatives of the industry that recycles traditional materials--paper, glass, plastic, metals, textiles and rubber--and representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Justice, and the national environmental community. Similar language has been included in virtually every comprehensive Superfund bill since 1994. In fact, the original agreement, upon which the bill is based, has remained intact for five years. With over 40 Senate cosponsors, support for the bill has been both extensive and bi-partisan. The companion House bill has almost 300 co-sponsors. Mr. President, since Senator Daschle and I introduced S. 2180, some have argued that we should not ``piecemeal'' Superfund. They argue that every part of Superfund should be held together tightly, until a comprehensive approach to reauthorization is found. I generally agree that keeping popular, non-controversial provisions in an omnibus bill makes the more controversial provisions easier to swallow. And given the broad-based support for the recycling piece across both parties, some think it should be held as a ``sweetener'' for some of the more difficult issues. Superfund's five-year history suggests, however, that the recycling provisions--as sweet as they are-- have done little, if anything, to help move a comprehensive Superfund bill forward. Rather, ``sweeteners'' like brownfields and municipal liability are what keep all parties at the table. Holding the recyclers hostage to a comprehensive bill has not helped reform Superfund, and continuing to hold them hostage will not ensure action in the future. What it does ensure is that recycling continues to be impeded and fails to attain our nation's goals. Mr. President, this recycling fix is minuscule compared to the overwhelming stakeholder needs regarding Superfund in general, but so significant for the recycling industry itself. It is easy to see why this bill has achieved such widespread bi-partisan support among our colleagues. S. 2180 address only one Superfund issue--the unintended consequence of law that holds recyclers responsible for the actions of those who purchase their goods. Therefore, S. 2180 does not address the very contentious and important issues of cleanup standards or natural resource damages. It does not deal with orphan shares or municipal liability. The goal of this bill is to remove the liability facing recyclers, not to establish who should be responsible for those shares if the unintended liability is removed. It does not deal with municipal liability specifically, but if municipalities ship materials for recycling, they would be treated the same as any other recycler. Thus, municipalities are provided some relief under S. 2180 for recycling transactions. It does not deal with owner/operator liability because such liability was intended by Superfund. Any changes in owner/operator liability should be considered within the context of comprehensive Superfund reform. Likewise, issues of relief for generators who ship for disposal, rather than for recycling, are not addressed by S. 2180. Waste disposal--indeed proper, environmentally sound waste disposal--is a basic tenet of Superfund. Reforms should be considered within the context of comprehensive Superfund revisions. Senator Daschle and I have heard from various parties who want to add minor provisions outside the scope of the bill. Although many have presented interesting and often compelling arguments, I find that none of these parties has been able to demonstrate the broad base of support that has made the Superfund Recycling Equity Act so unique. No group has been able to demonstrate the support of the broad-based, truly non- partisan group that has long recognized the need for recycling reform. I will continue to ask that any party wishing to enlarge the narrow focus of S. 2180 show support on both sides of the aisle, as well as from the Administration and the environmental community. Mr. President, much time, energy and expertise went into crafting an agreement where few thought it was possible. That agreement has been maintained through three separate Congresses where all sorts of attempts to modify it have failed. Congress should accept this delicately crafted product. S. 2180 shows Congress' commitment to protect and increase recycling. S. 2180 repeats what we all know and support--that continued and expanded recycling is a national goal. S. 2180 removes impediments to achieving this goal, impediments Congress never intended to occur. Mr. President, the 40+ Senators who have already co-sponsored this bill recognize the need to amend Superfund for the very important purpose of increasing recycling in the public interest. Let's act this year.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I don't believe I have the floor to yield, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe the yeas and nays have been asked for, and there was a sufficient second.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we will then go to the unanimous consent agreement we had with regard to bankruptcy. The first 2 hours will be debated, equally divided, on minimum wage, and then we will go to the bankruptcy bill after that. Beginning tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m., we will go to the veto override issue on the partial-birth abortion ban. That is not a unanimous consent request. It is an announcement of our intent.