Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Is the Senator--has the Senator from Oklahoma completed his remarks? Were you through with your remarks?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, tomorrow we will convene at 9:30, and there will be 1 hour for morning business, and then we will begin consideration of two items tomorrow, calendar No. 299, H.R. 2709, relative to Iran sanctions, with a total of 3 hours for debate. We already entered into an agreement back before the Easter recess as to how this issue would be considered, on or before May 22. So we will have this issue up tomorrow. There could be an amendment offered by Senator Levin. But we hope to get that up tomorrow. I won't even announce at this moment exactly which one of these two bills will come first, because we will need to see, for instance, if the ISTEA highway and infrastructure bill is ready to go. As soon as we get it, we want to take that up. But it will be the Iran sanctions issue, and then we will consider and dispose of the ISTEA conference report. So, votes will occur tomorrow, probably at least one, maybe two or three. It will depend on how these issues develop. Some people are saying, Will the ISTEA conference be completed? I am told by the leaders that they will be able to complete it tonight. They may need a little extra time in the morning to make sure that Senators who are affected one way or the other have been briefed as to exactly what is in it, but they know that we need to complete this legislation before we go home for Memorial Day recess, and we should be committed to get that done. With that, I yield the floor and the morning business would be in order.

Mr. LOTT. I am happy to.

Mr. LOTT. If I can say to the Senator from Kentucky, I know he is interested in this nominee. Over a week ago, I believe, we had it cleared.

Mr. LOTT. Then I thought we worked it out again, and another problem popped up.

Mr. LOTT. But I think we will take another run at it tomorrow and see if we can maybe work it out.

Mr. LOTT. I will say to the Senator from Kentucky, I realize Margaret Greene----

Mr. LOTT. Needs to be released. We also have worked out, I believe, an agreement that involves releasing Mr. Barry for the Department of the Interior and Mary Anne Sullivan to be counsel at the Department of Energy. We would like to move all three of those.

Mr. LOTT. We will work on it tonight and tomorrow. Keep working on it.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the case of People versus James Eugene Arenas is a criminal case pending in the Municipal Court for Fresno, California. The defendant has been charged with threatening to kill a state official and to blow up a county courthouse. The California Attorney General, who is prosecuting the case, has subpoenaed an employee on Senator Barbara Boxer's staff to testify at a preliminary hearing in this case. The remarks underlying these charges were made by the defendant in a conversation with the Senate staffer following a referral from the Senator's office to state authorities of a casework request from the defendant. This resolution would authorize Senator Boxer's staff to testify and produce relevant documents, with representation from the Senate Legal Counsel.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know we are having a lot of fun here, but for the information of all Senators, there will be no further votes this evening. The Senate has tried to work out an agreement that would resolve the impasse that we have right now parliamentary, and with regard to the substance of those amendments, but we have not been able to get that worked out yet. There are very strong feelings on both sides of the amendments that are pending, so I can understand that. So, since we haven't worked out an agreement, I now ask there be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT. I would prefer you do it in morning business, because if you had a short final statement, there would need to be a short final reaction. I see the Senator from Massachusetts is anxious to get recognition.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have had a good bit of discussion today and two very important votes. I hope that we can move on now to some other amendments that really are important and will determine how this legislation is eventually written. I thank Senators again for keeping calm and working through this. The managers are working very diligently. I emphasize again to my colleagues, while I think every Senator obviously needs to have the time and will have the time he or she needs to make a statement, I do think it would be wise if you can say what you have to say and we can move on. To go for an extended period of time on an amendment 2, 3, 4, 5 hours is going to make it very difficult to ever get a satisfactory result. I hope Senators will agree to some reasonable time limits. I am not going to ask for a unanimous consent agreement now. I don't think it is necessary, but I will suggest the form that we might take in a consent agreement as to how to proceed. It is my hope that Senator Gregg from New Hampshire will be recognized next to offer his amendment, with Senator Leahy, regarding immunity. Senator Gregg and Senator Leahy have been circling the area since we started. They are ready to go. The debate should last the rest of this session today. It is my hope that the vote on, or in relation to, that amendment can be scheduled to occur first thing on Thursday morning--I mean early--so we can move to the next amendment, which will come from the Democratic side. Senator Daschle and Senator Kerry will have to decide what amendment that will be. Following the disposition of that amendment offered by the Democrats, then I hope the Senate will consider the farmers' protection issue and debate it, have a vote on that issue or issues in a way, hopefully, that is agreeable and as fair as possible to both sides of that issue. Then we will really have a feel for where we are and can make an assessment about time and where to go from there. I hope that Senators are comfortable with that. I think that it is a fair way to proceed alternating back and forth. We are not ducking the tough issues. This last amendment was a key amendment. This next amendment is a key amendment. The farmers' amendment is critical to all concerned. So I hope this will be acceptable and we can move in this way. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have cleared this with all concerned parties, including the Democratic leadership. I ask unanimous consent that the veto message to accompany S. 1502 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and spread in full upon the Journal, and further, that it be set aside to be called up by the majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this evening, a number of us will be gathering together to honor Stuart Balderson who recently retired from the United States Senate after nearly four decades of exemplary service. I would like to take just a few moments to thank Stuart and to wish him well as he begins the next chapter of his life. On May 23, 1960, Stuart Balderson, a twenty-two year old fresh out of the Navy, came to work in the United States Senate. At that time, Lyndon Johnson was the Majority Leader and Dwight D. Eisenhower was in the White House. Stuart was brought on board by Secretary of the Senate ``Skeeter'' Johnston and assigned a position in the Senate Finance Office. Over the course of the next 38 years, Stuart worked in every department of that office, including payroll, accounting, retirement and benefits, and legislative budgeting. In 1980, he assumed its top position, Financial Clerk of the United States Senate, and served in that capacity for the next 18 years. Over the past 38 years, Stuart has seen a lot of history on Capitol Hill. To give you an idea of how much things have changed, when Stuart began working in the Senate, the Capitol Building was still using direct current from its own generators. You needed to use an AC adaptor if you wanted to plug in any electrical equipment, but there wasn't much electrical equipment to plug in. In those days, ``computers'' referred to the people who calculated the numbers rather than to any machines they used. Stuart's predecessor, Bill Ridgely, used to call those the ``Bob Cratchitt'' days of the Disbursing Office, when the Senate's bookkeepers, like Bob Cratchitt in Dickens' A Christmas Carol, wore green visors and armbands and sat on high stools. A lot has changed since then. The number of Senate employees relying on the Senate Finance Office to handle their paychecks has more than doubled. Total Senate expenditures have risen from $25.9 million in 1960 to $583.3 million in 1997. In many ways, Stuart grew with the Senate, but the two things that always remained constant were his dedication to this institution and the financial integrity he brought to the job. I know I speak for many other members and staff, past and present, when I say that we will miss Stuart. We commend him for his long and outstanding service and we wish him well as he retires.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today Senator Chafee, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has introduced legislation to reauthorize the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. I support the Foundation and the activities it undertakes to further conservation and management of our nation's fish and wildlife resources. Created by Congress in 1984, the Foundation has forged a strong relationship between government and corporate stakeholders, fostering cooperation and coordination. It has been successful in bringing private sector involvement, initiative and technology to bear in solving conservation problems. With this reauthorization, the Foundation's record of providing real on-the-ground conservation will continue. Mr. President, all federal money appropriated to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation must be matched by contributions from non- federal sources: corporations, State and local government agencies, foundations and individuals. The Foundation's operating policy is to raise a match of at least 2 to 1, to maximize leverage for our federal funds. With the financial assistance of the private sector and the technical knowledge of the States, the Foundation can be both effective and responsive to conservation needs. All of the Foundation's projects are peer reviewed by agency staff, state resource officials, and other professionals in the natural resource field. No project is undertaken without the input and support of the local community and state interests. The Foundation has also initiated a process to solicit comments from members of Congress concerning grants in a member's district or state. Mr. President, one of the things that distinguishes the Foundation from other conservation groups is its results in the field. The Foundation has worked with over 700 agencies, universities, businesses and conservation groups, both large and small, over the last decade. These relationships have helped the Foundation become one of the most effective conservation organizations in the nation. In Mississippi, for example, the Foundation has supported local habitat restoration projects to help private landowners install water control structures to provide wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl. Our farmers have learned that it also benefits weed control, seed-bed preparation, prevention of erosion--all at a lower cost. The Foundation has provided grants to assist private landowners in restoring bottomland hardwood habitats critical to migrating neotropical songbirds and other water-dependant wildlife species. These efforts are helping to maintain the state's original wetlands habitats. Activities of the Foundation do produce real on-the-ground conservation benefits for the resources of our nation. I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today Senator Chafee, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has introduced legislation to reauthorize the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. I support the Foundation and the activities it undertakes to further conservation and management of our nation's fish and wildlife resources. Created by Congress in 1984, the Foundation has forged a strong relationship between government and corporate stakeholders, fostering cooperation and coordination. It has been successful in bringing private sector involvement, initiative and technology to bear in solving conservation problems. With this reauthorization, the Foundation's record of providing real on-the-ground conservation will continue. Mr. President, all federal money appropriated to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation must be matched by contributions from non- federal sources: corporations, State and local government agencies, foundations and individuals. The Foundation's operating policy is to raise a match of at least 2 to 1, to maximize leverage for our federal funds. With the financial assistance of the private sector and the technical knowledge of the States, the Foundation can be both effective and responsive to conservation needs. All of the Foundation's projects are peer reviewed by agency staff, state resource officials, and other professionals in the natural resource field. No project is undertaken without the input and support of the local community and state interests. The Foundation has also initiated a process to solicit comments from members of Congress concerning grants in a member's district or state. Mr. President, one of the things that distinguishes the Foundation from other conservation groups is its results in the field. The Foundation has worked with over 700 agencies, universities, businesses and conservation groups, both large and small, over the last decade. These relationships have helped the Foundation become one of the most effective conservation organizations in the nation. In Mississippi, for example, the Foundation has supported local habitat restoration projects to help private landowners install water control structures to provide wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl. Our farmers have learned that it also benefits weed control, seed-bed preparation, prevention of erosion--all at a lower cost. The Foundation has provided grants to assist private landowners in restoring bottomland hardwood habitats critical to migrating neotropical songbirds and other water-dependant wildlife species. These efforts are helping to maintain the state's original wetlands habitats. Activities of the Foundation do produce real on-the-ground conservation benefits for the resources of our nation. I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. At this point, Mr. President, I ask the Senate if they would allow me to go through this.

Mr. LOTT. I wanted to give you a chance to inquire, but by objecting you certainly can inquire.

Mr. LOTT. Yes, it is.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there is objection. Before I renew the request that I made, which was merely that this substitute be printed as a Senate amendment and the final version only be printed in the Record, I want to note that all this means is that we would have to print all three of these documents, which are all pretty substantial in size. We can do that, but there is a cost involved and there is time involved. I hoped that there would not be objection to having this document printed. It would be available to the Members to review. But if there is objection to that, it won't stop anything. We will go forward. Let me respond to a lot that has been said because I thought it was important that the former chairman of the Commerce Committee, the Senator from South Carolina who worked with Senator McCain, be heard, and I thought it was very important that the Senator from Kentucky make his case. But let me also explain what is going on here. Everybody knows this has not been easy to get through the committee process to get at this point on the floor of the Senate with a lot of give and take and a lot of Senators who had to take positions that were hard for them, including the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain. And other Senators who are going to be involved in this have had to accept some things they didn't go along with. I acknowledge that the Senator from South Carolina has worked very carefully with the Senator from Arizona. But also it is my job as majority leader to try to find a responsible way to move this forward to get it to the floor in the fairest possible way. There is no way to do that without some people feeling like, ``Well it is not exactly the way I wanted it,'' or ``It doesn't give me a fair position,'' or ``It doesn't give me more than a fair position. All I want is an advantage.'' Now the Senator from Indiana is chairman of the Agriculture Committee. It seems rational to me that you would understand that as majority leader I would be interested and concerned in the position, or an amendment to be offered on this important piece of legislation by the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and, if we didn't do it this way, he would be disadvantaged in that he would have to have 60 votes, not 51--not a majority, a supermajority of 60 votes. I understand that the Senator from Kentucky wanted to require that, and he has used his influence to get it in the position where that could have occurred. He also understands that what I am doing here is perfectly within the rules. I am trying to get everybody on a fair and equal footing. I don't know how the votes are going to go.

Mr. LOTT. If I could, because I didn't interrupt the Senator from Kentucky. I don't know how the voting is going to go. Senator Lugar might get 51 votes. Senator Ford might win and prevail because 51 votes cannot be achieved for the Lugar amendment. There are a lot of people who don't think either one of these are all that hot. Quite frankly, they would like a whole different arrangement to be of assistance legitimately to the tobacco farmers. These are not the only two solutions in the world. There might be some other ones. I do not want to disadvantage anybody. But this is an amendment that has been around on this subject for quite some time. Senator Lugar has never made it a secret of the fact that he would want this to be offered, or as an alternative available to him to be offered. There are others who do not like this provision or that provision that is included or not included. But, in other instances, the Senators would have to offer an amendment only to get 50 votes. So I think this is a fair way to go. I am sorry the Senator doesn't agree with it. But I have been very meticulous to make sure that everybody was aware of what we were trying to do here. I have not been in all of these substantive negotiations. I have been strictly looking at how we can move this forward and what the process is to have it come up and considered in a fair way. The chairman of the Finance Committee is standing here now wanting to ask some questions of the Chair about what this means for the Finance Committee and what they did. They had a tough time. They came up with some improvements. They came up with some things certainly I don't agree with, and I don't think the chairman does, either. But he is willing to get a clarification of what it means for him, and to go forward. I think he has taken the right position. So I just wanted to take this opportunity to say that I understand where everybody is coming from but that I think this is the fair way to do it. I don't think we ought to start over by saying, ``Well, if we don't get this, or don't get that, we are going to kill it.'' I don't think anybody wants that to happen on your side of the aisle. Let's go forward. Let's have some amendments. And let's see where the votes are. That is the way to do this.

Mr. LOTT. I believe there is no reservation.

Mr. LOTT. Let me do this, Mr. President, so that the Senator can respond. I yield to the Senator from Kentucky so he can respond.

Mr. LOTT. The only time there would be a guarantee of that is when it has gone through the Senate, the House, then a conference, and the President puts pen to paper.