Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce the appointment of three individuals to the Amtrak Reform Council--the ARC: Mr. Gilbert E. ``Gil'' Carmichael of Mississippi, Mr. Joseph Vranich of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Paul M. Weyrich of Virginia. All three have years of rail transportation experience. All three understand and respect Amtrak's contributions to the American economy. All three are truly committed to genuine railroad reform. All three will serve for five years. All three will examine the fiscal performance of Amtrak. Each of these appointees bring many years of experience to this challenging railroad issue. Each brings his own particular approach to this transportation job. I've known Mr. Gil Carmichael for many years. He is a dedicated public servant who has already served our nation as Federal Railroad Administrator for President Bush and served four years on the Amtrak Board of Directors. He also has an impressive depth and breadth of knowledge on all facets of transportation--it was Gil who sponsored the first World Railways Congress. It brought together senior rail officials from around the world. so Gil knows the rail business from the bottom up, and he brings to the ARC that good old every-day, common sense approach that we Mississippians are so proud of. Mr. Joseph Vranich helped create Amtrak while serving as the Executive Director of the National Association of Railroad Passengers. He is a specialist on high-speed train travel, and literally wrote the book on so-called ``Supertrains.'' Just late last year, he published the most important new book on railroads, ``Derailed: What Went Wrong and What to Do About America's Passenger Trains.'' Mr. Vranich brings to the ARC a broad vision of passenger rail service, what it was, what it was meant to be, what it can be. And Mr. Paul Weyrich has over 30 years of experience with rail and mass transit issues. He also served on the Amtrak Board of Directors during the Bush administration, and has published numerous works on the subject. Mr. Weyrich brings the hard-boiled sensibilities of a newspaperman of the old school, a newspaperman good at digging for the facts. Just the facts for the ARC. The selection of these three reflects my desire to bring managerial expertise to Amtrak's oversight. The ARC will ensure that Amtrak spends the taxpayers' money wisely. The ARC's first loyalty will be to the American taxpay--not to the nostalgic sound of passenger trains going down the tracks. Gil, Joe and Paul are executives who will take a good, hard look at Amtrak, and I expect them to exercise courage and leadership. The ARC has the responsibility to offer sound judgment as they advise both the Administration and the Congress. I have no doubt the ARC will have a key role in shaping Amtrak's future. I'm pleased to announce that today the Speaker will also identify his three selections. These selections together will constitute the majority of the ARC. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues who gave me such a rich list of candidates to select from. The choices were difficult. The Amtrak Board of Directors, the other managerial oversight body for Amtrak is to be renominated this summer. I hope to see new faces, a fresh look and a fresh approach. This would help Amtrak successfully deal with the cultural shift required by the new reauthorization statute. The combined synergy of a new board and the ARC will make a profound difference to the way America's passenger rail service will enter the next millennium. I look forward to seeing ARC getting started on its important task. America's passenger rail service will be well served by the ARC.

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 want to talk for just a few minutes about a long-term goal of many Senate Republicans, and I think most Americans. And that is fundamental tax reform. Our Tax Code contains the accumulation of 85 years of various special interest provisions, and provisions that have just been added through one tax bill or another. And it has become more complicated, more difficult, and more unfair with every passing year. Since the Federal Government first started taxing Americans' income, the tax beast has grown, and the power of the tax collector along with it. That is why we need IRS reform, and why we will have an IRS reform bill on the floor of the Senate by the end of March so that we can pass it before April 15th of this year. It certainly is overdue. But we have found a lot of the problems that we have suspected really do exist and in many ways are worse than the worst horror stories we have heard. We now have a system in which the Federal Government takes one dollar out of every five dollars that you earn. And the IRS uses its coercive powers to pry into every aspect of financial life and personal life. It has gotten totally out of control. The copy of the Tax Code that I have here contains thousands of pages in very small print, and weighs 6\1/2\ pounds. How could the average working small businessman, farmer, rancher, or individual be expected to cope with and understand all that is in these two very large volumes? The IRS has an annual budget now of $7.7 billion. We spend five times more to pay tax auditors to harass hard-working citizens than we spend to clean up Superfund waste sites. It really doesn't make sense. It is important that we in Congress admit that we are part of the problem because every time we have good intentions we pass another tax bill that reduces taxes--hopefully, in most instances. But it doesn't make it simpler. In many ways it quite often makes it more complicated. The Congress writes the tax law. And almost every time we pass a tax bill we make the code more complex, increase the burden on the taxpayer, and make it harder to enforce. For all of these reasons, America needs fundamental tax reform. Incremental tax cuts are good. And I hope we can have some this year. And I am glad we were able to take a small step toward reducing the taxpayers' burden last year in the very critical areas of capital gains, estate tax, and families with children. To go where we really need to go, however, we must force the Congress to act. To make fundamental tax reform happen, we need a ``forcing event,'' a deadline. I firmly believe that Congress will never commit itself to replacing the Tax Code with something simpler, flatter, and growth-friendly, unless we create our own deadline. For that reason, I want to announce today that I will ask Budget Committee Chairman Domenici to put a sense-of-the-Senate provision in this year's budget resolution that the current Tax Code should be terminated as of December 31, 2001. I am also an original cosponsor of Senator Hutchinson's bill, S. 1520, The Tax Code Termination Act. In addition to the sense-of-the-Senate provision in the budget resolution, we will vote on legislation like Senator Hutchinson's bill this year. It creates the deadline to force Washington and the American people to make some hard choices but to make the right choices. We will then be able to see who is serious about replacing our rat's nest Tax Code, and who wants to defend the current tax system. I yield the floor, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, spring has come early to Washington this year, and the Senate's return to the subject of campaign finance will strengthen the impression that we have already entered the television rerun season. The evening news, I fear, for the next few nights will seem like a replay of events from last fall when two irreconcilable points of view met on the Senate floor and reached a stalemate. We agreed to try again at some time before March 6, and so, pursuant to that agreement, I have laid down a bill that embodies the most important campaign finance reform of all: paycheck protection. The bill, S. 1663, is at the desk. It is as simple as this: No one should be forced to make a political contribution. That is pretty elementary, and overwhelmingly Americans, including union members, agree with that. No one should be compelled by a union or a corporation or a Congress to give their hard-earned dollars to a candidate or a campaign. And yet, millions of our fellow Americans are held up like that, not at the point of a gun but through misuse of their union dues. I am the son of a shipyard worker, a pipefitter, a pipefitter union member, and even, as I understand it, temporarily a union steward. I grew up in a blue-collar family. I grew up with my father going to work in a shipyard, and I am very sympathetic to how they work--the conditions they used to have to work in and the fact that those conditions are better now. But I know my father would have objected strenuously to his union dues being taken and used for political purposes with which he did not agree. Diverting workers' earnings to campaign coffers of some favorite politicians in some other part of the country, that certainly is a legitimate concern. No matter who does it, we shouldn't be allowing that to happen. If we are serious about reforming the Nation's campaign finance laws, this is the place to start, by protecting workers' paychecks. This bill before us, which is largely the work of my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, is the gate through which campaign finance reform must proceed if it is to proceed at all. Whatever our respective views on other aspects of the campaign finance debate, support for paycheck protection is a litmus test of whether we are serious or whether we are credible. Opponents of paycheck protection have created quite a stir about other problems they perceive with campaign finance reform. They remind me of the overly zealous policeman writing a ticket for a car parked just 3 inches too close to a fire hydrant while a brutal mugging takes place right behind his back. In fact, the workers of America are mugged every time they are forced to contribute to candidates and to causes they do not support. The bills that have thus far been called ``campaign finance reform'' would not do a thing about that, but, golly, they would sure write parking tickets. This Senate over the past 2 years has been able to reach consensus on a lot of difficult issues. It hasn't been easy. We have worked hard reaching consensus, agreeing to welfare reform and last year the budget agreement and tax reductions. It took weeks, it took months, it took sacrifice, it took give and take. That atmosphere has not developed with campaign finance reform. You would think we could reach a consensus, but the consensus is not there yet. Both sides have to want consensus, and a consensus would have to do five things: First, respect the constitutional rights of every American to engage in the political process as those rights were enunciated by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. We don't need less participation by Americans at all stages of life and in all avenues in elections; we need more participation. We shouldn't be trying to restrict their expression; we ought to be encouraging it to take advantage of every opportunity to express themselves and express their views on issues and, yes, on candidates, and not sometime far off removed from an election when people are not paying attention. As a matter of fact, I think one of the things we ought to do is shorten the length of campaigns and compact them if we can, but there is a little problem with that, too. That would be my desire, but how do you do it constitutionally? Second, encourage greater participation by citizens in the political process. Third, ensure that any and all contributions to a campaign are absolutely voluntary. Fourth, restrict the power of Government officials to meddle in campaigns and to intimidate citizens who participate in them. And fifth, and last, safeguard America's elections from foreign influence. All of us should be able to rally around those very basic principles, I think. Unfortunately, though, many in this Chamber don't seem to want a consensus. What they want is an advantage, an unfair advantage for some candidates, some special interests, and some contributors, but not for all. Sure, let's be real honest. Democrats would like to limit contributions from groups that support Republicans, but if you talk about any kind of fair restriction on their supporters, oh, no, that's not fair. They want to tilt the Nation's campaign laws and, in the process, discourage citizen involvement in Government. Their legislation would make it more difficult for Americans to hold accountable their elected officials. That is hardly the way to restore trust in government or respect for those who lead it. More rules and regulations will not do the job. Our elections are already swamped with rules and regulations. They are so complicated that virtually every congressional campaign now needs a battery of election law attorneys to guard against inadvertent violations. Every campaign now has to have a CPA to make sure you get all these filings done properly and that you get the addresses and the employment. You better have some good legal advice and you better take every possible precaution to make sure that you are dotting every ``i'' and crossing every ``t,'' because there are going to be some people who will be pawing through everything you do. I have voted for some of the campaign finance laws in the past. I voted for the FEC, thinking maybe it would get better, and it has gotten worse. We have been limiting participation. We have been making it more difficult for candidates to be able to raise the money to get their message out, and there are a lot of people I figure who would like to really put elections in the control of the national news media, the national broadcasters, certain limited organizations. I have said here before, if I were at the mercy of the major newspaper in my State and the biggest television station in my State, I would be trying lawsuits in Pascagoula, MS, and making a lot more money, but I was able to get out and get my message across in spite of the opposition of the establishment, the courthouse gangs, and the news media with their prejudices. I was able to go directly to the people. Would the proposal that we have heard--McCain-Feingold--help that? No. It would cut that off. All the laws already on the books did not prevent, by the way, the most blatant, the most egregious, the most offensive disregard of the law in the last Presidential campaign. I mean, this idea of ``stop me before I do it again,'' I do not think should sell. The first thing we should do with our campaigns in America is to comply with the laws on the books. That is where the problem was. The last election, you know, did not have problems because we had people who were doing things that we could stop with this bill; they were violating the law. That is what caused the problem. Foreign contributions are illegal. Many of the problems that we saw in the last election were illegal. Now some people say, ``Well, we've got to stop the efforts of people to help the parties.'' I thought we were supposed to help the two-party system in America. We should encourage the two-party system. We should encourage parties to get voters to turn out to the polls. We should encourage groups to support candidates of their choice--not discourage it. The outcome, of course, that we had from the last Presidential campaign was a morass involving everything from Vice Presidential phone calls and Native American casinos to illegal fundraising at religious institutions. All of those things were probably against the law anyway. When key Democratic fundraisers flee the country to avoid questioning, it is no wonder their beneficiaries would like to change the subject away from the enforcement of current law. But enforcing current law is precisely the way that we should begin the debate on this campaign finance reform issue today. If current law needs to be streamlined or clarified or simplified, let us do it. But let us do it while encouraging greater participation by more people in politics, and let us do it constitutionally. The amendment that will be offered by Senator McCain and Senator Feingold will take us in the wrong direction, in my opinion, toward more controls, more restrictions, and less accountability. We should go the other way. We should try to replicate on a national scale the spirit of a town meeting in which every person is free to speak, free to complain, and free to hold accountable those in positions of power. The bill I have presented advances that goal by protecting workers' paychecks against political abuse. Let us agree to do this today and then explore other possible accords. If we can take this one step, this modest step, it could be the one that would break the dam and allow us to do some of the other things that we probably could agree to. But, no, it is said that this is a poison pill--a poison pill--when the American people know it is the right thing to do, when union members support it overwhelmingly, when what we are really talking about is voluntarily agreeing to have your money used. That is a very American thing we are trying to do, I think. We should stop the confiscation of workers' earnings for the benefit of politicians. Then we can finish campaign finance reform in a true sense and move on to other matters the American people want us to deal with. Let me just say that we are going to have a full debate on this today, tomorrow, Wednesday; and there will be votes on it as we agreed to last year. But I want to remind my colleagues that after this, we have pending some really important issues, including issues involving education in America, highway construction in America, NATO enlargement, a budget resolution, supplemental appropriations to provide funds for the situations in Bosnia and Iraq, and to make a decision about how to deal with IMF. We are talking about Internal Revenue Service reform, maybe even some tobacco settlement legislation. All of that, and it has to be done before the end of April. We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of work to do on issues that people really care about. Education is a perfect example. A decent infrastructure is another example. In my own State of Mississippi, we have gotten an unfair share of the highway funds for 40 years. It is time we changed that. We should give this debate fair time. And we can do that this week as we promised. But we have a lot of really important issues that we need to take up that will directly affect people's lives in America for years to come. I hope that after a reasonable time, unless we can find some broader consensus that I do not see that would include paycheck equity for workers, then we should move on to other very important issues.

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor, Madam President. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

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

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe that Senator Daschle will join me on the floor shortly because he and I would like to, in effect, have a joint statement with regard to Iraq because we want the message to be unambiguous, very clear to America and to our allies around the world, and to Iraq about our attitude and what our intentions are with regard to this very important matter. I just had a call from Senator John Warner, who is in Russia today along with Senator Carl Levin. They are escorting Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen. They have already been to six countries since they were in Germany. I believe perhaps even the Senator from Arizona, the Presiding Officer, was there. They have gone throughout the Arab world, and now they are in Russia. He tells me that he believes that when they return, Secretary Cohen and the two Senators will bring a great deal of helpful information to the Senate and to the American people about what they have heard in the Arab world and what they have heard from our allies in those areas' meetings. They believe that they will be able to answer some of the very important questions that Senators have been asking. So we will look forward to their return. I had hoped that we could get to the point where we could pass a resolution this week on Iraq. But we really developed some physical problems, if nothing else. Senator Warner and Senator Levin would like very much to be a part of the discussion about what the situation will be and how we should proceed on Iraq. They would like to be here. And other Senators are necessarily not going to be able to be here beyond this afternoon. So we have decided that the most important thing is not to move so quickly but to make sure that we have had all the right questions asked and answered and that we have available to us the latest information about what is expected or what is going to be happening with our allies in the world. I was noting, I say to Senator Daschle, that I just talked to Senator Warner in Russia, and he was telling me that Secretary Cohen and Senator Warner and Senator Levin are looking forward to coming back and giving us a full report on their trip to the Arab world. Now they are in Russia today. Mr. President, I have no doubt that the entire world is watching the current crisis between Iraq and the international community unfold. This is another showdown caused by Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi dictator has decided that his weapons-of-mass-destruction program is more important than the welfare of his own people. At a time when we have been getting reports--in fact, we have seen children suffering from malnutrition--this dictator has been building $1.5 billion in additional palaces. He has already endured 7 years of sanctions so that he can develop biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons --and the means to deliver them. This is a very serious matter. For some time we--and I mean America and our allies--have been working to develop a resolution on Iraq that has broad bipartisan support and also one that would bring the situation under control there by diplomatic efforts hoping to avoid military action. But that has not happened yet. I believe we are moving toward a consensus in the Senate on a number of the key issues that must be addressed as we look to the future. And here they are. First of all, Saddam Hussein does pose a real threat to the region and to the entire world. I believe the Senate recognizes that. I hope that the American people recognize that. This is not a hypothetical danger that has been dreamed up by some armchair strategists. There is a long track record in this area of actions by Saddam Hussein. He poses a clear and present danger without equal in the post-cold-war-world. He is dangerous. He is a threat to his neighbors. He is a destabilizing force in the whole region. And, yes, he is actually a threat all over the world including the United States. This is a man who has already invaded two of his neighbors. Iraq has used chemical weapons inside and outside its borders. It has launched missiles against Saudi Arabia and against Israel. Hussein tried to murder former President George Bush in 1993. Now, we should not make any mistake and think that a military action, if it comes to that, is going to rehabilitate Saddam Hussein or even eliminate him. He does not have any desire to join the civilized world, apparently, and he has shown that he can survive even when the whole world has concerns with his conduct and has taken unified action to stop his aggression. Second, I think there is a consensus in the Senate that military force is justified if diplomatic actions fail in responding to the threat that Saddam Hussein poses. The threat is serious and our response must be serious. Now, any military force that is used does entail risks, to our military, to our allies and even to our country if there is an attempt at retaliation. The American people need to understand that, and we need to think about it carefully. And we need to talk about the risks that are involved. That is one reason why, when we bring up a resolution, if it is necessary--and I assume it will be--we must make sure that every Senator who wants to be heard can be heard. I remember when we had a similar debate back in the early nineties. I think some 80 Senators spoke. Now, this time we won't have 500,000 troops amassed on the ground ready to go in, but it is still a very serious matter, and I want to make sure that we don't try to restrict Senators. In fact, we could not. Senator Daschle knows if we asked unanimous consent to bring this resolution up today and vote on it in 4 hours, we would not get it; the Senate is known for its deliberate actions. And the longer I stay in the Senate, the more I have learned to appreciate it. It does help to give us time to think about the potential problems and the risks and the ramifications and to, frankly, press the administration. I feel better this week than I did last week because of the responses we are getting about how this is being thought out and what would be the military action and what will be the long- term plans to deal with Saddam Hussein. We are beginning to get some answers now. I believe the administration is thinking harder about what those answers should be because the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, has raised these questions, not in a critical way, not in a threatening way, but in an honest way of saying, have you thought about this? What about this approach? Can we do more? I think that has served a very positive purpose. Some people have said to me, even back in my own State, ``This is not a threat to us. Let them deal with that over there.'' Who? Who is going to deal with it? If America does not lead, who is going to lead? Nobody else. Now, our allies can, should, and, I believe, will join us if action is necessary. But we are going to have to lead the way. We are going to have to make the tough decisions. And people need to understand that this threat could even apply to us. While it may be a direct threat of a Scud missile in the region with a chemical warhead even, it could very easily be a threat to Paris or some city in the U.S. involving anthrax that's been produced by Saddam Hussein. These are terrible things to even think about, but you are dealing with a person who has already used terrible actions against his own people. And so he is not so far removed. We are the ones who have to provide the direction. And we have to make sure people understand it is a threat to the whole world. In my view, the decisive use of force against Iraq coupled with the long-term strategy to eliminate the threat entails less risks in the long run than allowing Saddam Hussein's actions and ambitions to go unchecked. You cannot do it when you are dealing with a situation like this. In the words of former Secretary of State Jim Baker, ``The only thing we shouldn't do is do nothing.'' We cannot allow that to be the result or what we do is nothing. The administration has agreed with us that funding for the operations in and around Iraq require supplemental appropriations. We had very grave concerns by the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and Senator Domenici about how much will this cost? How is it going to be paid for? We cannot continue to say ``just take it out of your hide'' to the Pentagon; it is having an effect on morale, quality of life, on readiness and modernization. We already have a very high tempo for our military men and women in the Navy and Air Force. We are satisfied that they now have made a commitment that they are going to come up and ask for funding for both these purposes, in Bosnia and, if necessary, in Iraq. And these will be emergency requests so it will not come out of necessary improvements in barracks or spare parts for aircraft, which are very important. There is a consensus on seriously examining now I believe long-term policy options to increase the pressure on Saddam Hussein. The administration and Congress and our allies all look forward to dealing with a post-Saddam regime. But the question is how to get there. That is intended not to be a threat or say we should violate the law; it is intended to start the discussion, start the thinking about how can we increase these pressures. And we have to have a strategy to deal with whatever comes after the military option. Many things have been suggested. Toughen sanctions--not loosen sanctions, toughen sanctions. What about an embargo, what about expanding no-fly, no-drive zones? What about the support of opposition forces? There is a long list of suggestions, some that I will not even put in the record here, but they are worth thinking about. Our model should be the Reagan doctrine of rollback, not the Truman doctrine of containment in this instance. And I don't mean that as critically as it sounds. It is just that there are two different doctrines, and the doctrine here should be rollback, not containment. Despite our areas of agreement that we have clearly reached--Senator Daschle and I have been working together making sure every word is sanitized in the potential resolution--it is obvious we cannot get it done this week for physical reasons as much as anything else. And I remind my colleagues and the American people it was 5 months after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, 5 months before Congress passed a resolution authorizing the use of force to expel him. In this case, we have a bipartisan effort, trying to make sure that the right thing is going to be done and that the right language is developed. Unlike what we had in the early 1990's when the Speaker and majority leader were working to defeat the administration's policy, you now have a Speaker and a majority leader and the Democratic leader and the minority leader in the House all working together with the administration to make sure that the language is right and that the actions are right. Yes, more time may be needed for diplomacy and more time to think about the long-term plans, but a point will come when time will run out and action must go forward. When that comes, when U.S. Armed Forces are sent into harm's way, by the President of the United States, they will have the backing of the Senate and the American people. If the President makes the decision to deploy military force against the threat posed by Iraq, America will be united, united and praying for the safety of our men and women in uniform, united in hoping casualties are kept to a minimum, and united in hoping for and supporting a successful effort. I just want to make that point clear today. Nobody should interpret the fact that we don't vote on a resolution today as meaning that we are not united in the fundamental principles. We are. But we want to make sure that when we do take military action, we have thought about all the ramifications and the resolution that we come up with will have the involvement of 100 Senators, with 100 Senators being present and voting, and that every word is the appropriate word that reflects the best interests of the American people. So I am pleased to stand here this afternoon and make this statement and to assure my colleagues that I will continue to work with every Senator on both sides of the aisle to make sure we take the appropriate action, if it is necessary, when we return week after next. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I am looking forward to hearing Senator Daschle's comments on this subject. Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum momentarily.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to call attention to a Federal permit program that is causing problems in Mississippi, in the Southeastern United States and, indeed, in the entire United States: the Federal Section 404 ``wetlands'' permit program. This program has its roots in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, but has been designed primarily by the Federal courts and the Federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and not by the elected officials of this Nation. Twenty years have passed since the Congress of the United States has addressed this program legislatively. Currently, a Federal appellate court decision, two pending appellate court cases and a new proposed rulemaking by the Corps of Engineers are stirring up controversy about this program. No one should be surprised. This program is held together by baling wire and string and pieces are beginning to fall off all over the place. I encourage the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to bring to the full Senate legislation that makes meaningful, common sense changes to the Section 404 permit program. Review of this program is long overdue. Mr. President, I hope that this Congress can take meaningful action on the Section 404 program in 1998. One basic controversy about this program is the issue of the areas that are regulated as wetlands. The Federal agencies have interpreted their jurisdiction to extend to the farthest reaches of the Commerce Clause, and, I think, even beyond, including those isolated areas that merely ``could affect'' interstate commerce. Specifically, to some agencies this means those areas where a migratory bird ``could'' land. To make this grab for jurisdiction worse, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 percent of all Section 404 regulated areas are on privately owned property! On December 23, in Wilson v. United States Corps of Engineers, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned the criminal convictions of an individual, a corporation and a partnership for violating the Section 404 program in Charles County, Maryland. The individual had been sentenced to 21 months in jail and the three defendants had been fined a total of $4 million. The Fourth Circuit overturned the convictions and remanded the case to the district court, finding that only those areas that are either connected on the surface to navigable waters or are proven to be in interstate commerce could be regulated under the Section 404 program. Specifically, the court held that: Absent a clear indication to the contrary, we should not lightly presume that merely by defining `navigable waters' as `the waters of the United States', Congress authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to assert its jurisdiction in such a sweeping and constitutionally troubling manner. Even as a matter of statutory construction, one would expect that the phrase `waters of the United States', when used to define the phrase `navigable waters' refers to waters which, if not navigable in fact, are at least interstate or closely related to navigable or interstate waters. When viewed in light of its statutory authority, (the regulation), which defines `waters of the United States' to include intrastate waters that need have nothing to do with navigable or interstate waters, expands the statutory phrase `waters of the United States' beyond its definable limit. Accordingly, we believe that in promulgating (the regulation), the Army Corps of Engineers exceeded its congressional authorization under the Clean Water Act, and that, for this reason, (the regulation) is invalid. At long last, this case begins to limit the reach of the bureaucracy onto privately owned property under this program. A second area of controversy is a regulation issued by the Clinton Administration in September, 1993, that broadly expanded the definition of activities that are regulated under the Section 404 program. As many of you know, this permit problem was never designed to be a wetlands permit program, but rather evolved in that direction through judicial rulings and agency interpretations. The activities in ``wetlands'' that are regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are the ``discharge of dredged and fill material'' into the ``navigable waters''. On the face of it, the statute does not cover other activities that could degrade wetlands, such as ``draining'' or ``excavating'' wetlands. Obviously, if we are going to have a wetlands regulatory program and protect valuable wetlands, the program needs to cover ``drainage'' and ``excavation.'' In September 1993, the Clinton Administration issued a rulemaking that expanded coverage of the Section 404 program to include activities like drainage and excavation. Many of us noted that this might be good public policy, but this expansion exceeded the statute, and legislation would be necessary to expand the program to cover these activities. On January 23, 1997, a Federal district court in the District of Columbia struck down this regulation, called the Tulloch rule, as exceeding the statutory authority of the Clean Water Act. On January 9, 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments in this case. The Federal government had a rough day in court. I am told that the judges suggested that the agency interpretation of the jurisdictional reach of the Section 404 program went as far as ``land that might be wet someday''. One of the appellate judges asked the government attorney whether riding a bike through a wetland, where dirt accumulated on the tires and then fell off into the wetland during riding, would be an activity regulated under the Section 404 program. The government attorney answered yes, but the regulation was not aimed at this activity. The judge answered correctly, ``Not yet!'' This brings me to a recent Corps judgment on Nationwide Permit 26 that was attacked on the front page of the Washington Post on Saturday, January 31st. With the Corps and the EPA interpreting almost every activity as one covered by the Section 404 program, the Corps has adopted a series of Nationwide Permits that cover routine activities and prevent the necessity of proceeding through the costly and time-consuming normal permitting process. One of these permits, Nationwide Permit 26, which covers certain areas up to 3 acres in size, is scheduled to expire in December 1998. The Corps is developing a series of ``replacement permits''. These ``carve outs'' are essential if the Corps is to be able to manage this program without enormous delays in permit processing times. This is particularly true as the bureaucracy continually expands the types of activities that are regulated under the Section 404 program. Yet, some interest groups are attempting to pressure the Administration to reject these replacement permits. If they are successful, I am convinced that the program will fall into disarray, prompting calls not only for the reform of the current program, but the repeal of the whole thing. We will all have to keep an eye on this development. Finally, a case is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit styled Resource Investments, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In this case, the Corps used its Section 404 regulations to overturn the judgment of a county government in a public bid process regarding the location of a new solid waste disposal facility. I can assure you that it is not this Senator's view that the mission of the Army Corps of Engineers is to make judgments that historically have been within the purview of local elected officials. Mr. President, this is just a quick survey of some of the judgments that are being made by Federal agencies and Federal courts regarding the Section 404 program. These judgments sometimes expand and sometimes narrow this program. What is missing--and has been missing for 20 years--is the judgment of elected officials about fundamental aspects of this regulatory program that defy common sense and so often intrude on privately owned property, local economic activities and governmental infrastructure decisions. It is long-past time for the committee of jurisdiction over this program to bring forth legislation that proposes meaningful and responsible adjustments to this awful program. By the way, Mr. President, I should add one more thing. The current President of the United States, when he was the Governor of Arkansas, chaired the Lower Mississippi River Delta Development Commission. The statutory charge of this Commission was to study the seven-state Lower Mississippi River Delta region and to develop a ten-year regional economic development plan. This is a particularly troubled region economically. Both my state of Mississippi and the President's state of Arkansas contain portions of the Lower Mississippi River Delta. In May, 1990, the Commission filed its report, which was submitted to Congress over the signature of the current President. That report specifically addressed the problems of Federal wetlands regulation, stating: The national wetlands policy has caused significant problems for agriculture, aquaculture and commercial and industrial development. * * * * * Current definitions do not adequately differentiate the quality of wetlands. * * * * * Current interpretations of the national wetlands policy have placed major limitations on the Delta's economy because commercial and industrial development is being impaired. (all quotes from page 80 of the report) The report then made a number of recommendations, including these two from page 81 of the report: Congress should direct appropriate federal agencies to establish minimum-sized wetlands for regulation. * * * * * Congress should assign the responsibility for identification and maintenance of a wetlands inventory to one agency, and require consultation with other affected agencies. Mr. President, the President of the United States seems to have forgotten what he learned as chair of the Lower Mississippi River Delta Development Commission. The current Federal Section 404 permitting program regulates all wetlands regardless of size and is administered by two Federal agencies: the Corps of Engineers and the EPA. The President was correct with respect to these recommendations in 1990, but now that he is in a position to act, nothing has happened. I would hope that the President of the United States would submit at least these meaningful changes to Congress for our consideration in 1998.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a contract dispute, pending as a civil case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, between a subcontractor and the prime contractor constructing a Department of Labor Job Corps facility in Charleston, West Virginia. Prior to the litigation, the subcontractor, a West Virginia firm, sought assistance from Senator Byrd's and Senator Rockefeller's offices in contacting the Labor Department regarding the firm's difficulties over payment for its work on the project. In the civil lawsuit that has ensued between the two contracting firms, the prime contractor has now requested that the offices of Senator Byrd and Senator Rockefeller produce from their files copies of documents concerning the West Virginia Job Corps project. The constituent subcontractor firm has advised, through the Senate Legal Counsel, that it has no objection to the release of its correspondence with the Senator's offices. Thus, the usual principle of constituent confidentiality is not implicated here. However, as is often the case when a constituent reports difficulties in dealing with an executive agency, Senator Byrd's office and Senator Rockefeller's office have advised that their constituent's communications regarding this matter informed the Senators' consideration of potential alternatives to address the problem, including undertaking legislative or oversight action regarding the Labor Department's construction program and procurement procedures. In order to protect Senators' ability to undertake their legislative responsibilities free from interference and questioning, the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution privileges from compelled production in court proceedings materials from Senators' files relating to the legislative sphere. Nevertheless, Senators Byrd and Rockefeller are willing to provide to the parties in this case copies of documents reflecting their offices' role, to the extent that they may properly do so without impairing the important interests underlying the Senate's constitutional privileges. In view of the subcontractor's lack of objection, the Senators also have no objection to furnishing copies of their correspondence with the subcontractor. In addition, both Senators would like to provide the records of their communications with the Labor Department regarding this matter. Consistent with the overriding importance that the Constitution recognizes in fostering unimpeded communications between Senators and their staffs concerning matters of potential legislative action, the Senators will not waive their legislative privileges for their offices' internal records and work product. Accordingly, this resolution would authorize Senator Byrd's and Senator Rockefeller's offices to produce documents in this case, except where a privilege or objection should be asserted. The resolution also would authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to represent employees in Senator Byrd's and Senator Rockefeller's offices, should such representation become necessary to protect the Senate's privileges in connection with this matter.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this morning as previously ordered the Senate will resume debate on the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to S. 1601, the cloning bill, with the time until 10 a.m. equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. Also, as previously ordered, at 10 a.m. a rollcall vote will occur on the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to S. 1601. If cloture is invoked, the Senate will debate the motion to proceed to the cloning bill. If cloture is not invoked, the Senate can be expected to resume debate on the Massiah-Jackson nomination and then, at approximately 4 p.m. today, the Senate can be expected to begin debate on the nomination of Margaret Morrow, of California, to be U.S. district judge. I want to emphasize that even though we are going back to debate on Massiah-Jackson, that does not mean we will stay on that nomination all the way until 4 o'clock. We will probably have some announcement later on this morning about that matter, and how we would expect to handle it. Additional votes can be expected to occur during today's session of the Senate. As a reminder to all Senators, at 10 a.m. this morning a vote will occur on the cloture motion and we probably will have a vote late this afternoon on the Morrow nomination. It appears at this time that would occur probably around 6 o'clock, even though we have not advised everybody that that is our intent, or gotten an absolute commitment, but I believe there will probably be a vote about 6 o'clock on the Morrow nomination. I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I don't think we can do it that early, but we will work with everybody here in the next few minutes. If we could get it done right away, we will do it, but certainly we want to do it this morning if at all possible. I will continue to consult with the Democratic leader, and we will make that request soon. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. We would like to be able to do that. I think the best way to get a unanimous consent agreement is to continue to work with Senators on all sides. My intent would be that we enter into an agreement to begin as early as possible and to get a vote not later than 6 o'clock. If for some reason we could not get that agreement, then we would have to have that vote tomorrow morning, but I believe we can work with the interested Senators on both sides and get this agreement worked out. As soon as we do, hopefully even by noon, we will enter the request. I think it would be something everybody will be comfortable with.

Mr. LOTT. Yes, I yield.

Mr. LOTT. Now, Mr. President, we are working on an agreement with regard to this nomination--we still have to clear it with Senators on both sides of the aisle--that would allow us to announce some action in regard to this nomination within the next couple of hours, we hope certainly in the early afternoon, and then it would be our intent to go to the Morrow nomination. We have been working on a time agreement, and we will enter a request as to exactly when that would be debated and for how long. It is our intent to have a vote on that nomination at a reasonable hour this afternoon--not tonight.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity now to discuss this nomination with Senators on both sides of the aisle and those who did support her and certainly those who are opposed to this nomination. I think that we should not go forward to a vote at this time since there are very serious allegations out there. I am convinced they are true; I am convinced this nomination should not go forward; and I would urge at this point the President withdraw this nomination because clearly this nominee has very serious problems, conduct on the bench that is certainly inappropriate and a number of concerns about the nominee's attitude toward prosecutors and toward law enforcement. Clearly this is the type of nomination that should not be confirmed. But so that some of these articles, some of the cases, some of the suggestions that are now in the public arena can be properly looked into, I thought the best thing to do at this time would be to not go forward with a vote and allow time for the committee to have a hearing on the problems that have been identified. I don't think it can be disposed of in the near future. Having said that, I understand the chairman of the Judiciary Committee will be conducting an additional hearing on the nominee sometime when we return from the recess we are about to go into at the close of business on Thursday or Friday. So we can see what that hearing turns up. But I think that no further action can be taken at this time. I thank all Senators for their consideration and will yield the floor to the Senator from Missouri. I appreciate him yielding me this time. And I know that the Senators from Pennsylvania will both seek recognition so that they can comment on the present status of this nominee. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I rise today to recognize an important day in the history of this nation--a day that may intrigue some of you who are not familiar with Southern history. Tomorrow is the 299th anniversary of the landing of D'Iberville on the shores of present-day Mississippi, and the beginning of the French colonization of the American South. Madam President, my colleagues are familiar with the English landings in Jamestown and Plymouth, Maryland and Pennsylvania. Some may recall the Spanish settlements up the eastern seaboard or the missions in the far West. But I suspect few of you know of the French colonization of the deep South and the frontier of the future United States, and the deeds of men like Pierre Lemoyne Sieur D'Iberville, the French military officer who began that colonization. However, down home, all along the Mississippi Gulf Coast, we know and we remember. We remember how D'Iberville's band of French soldiers, hunters, farmers and adventurers began the exploration and occupation of the lower Mississippi valley. We remember that this landing eventually gave birth to towns as far-flung as Biloxi, Natchez, Mobile, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Memphis, St. Joseph, Detroit, and Galveston. My native Mississippi Gulf Coast is a place of year-round beauty, romance, and charm. It is easy to understand why the French chose to found their first colony there. We are throwing a party today, in Biloxi, Mississippi, where D'Iberville landed, 299 years ago tomorrow, and in Ocean Springs, where he built Fort Maurepas. As I am sure you have heard, we know how to throw a party. But next year, on this very day, will be the 300th anniversary of D'Iberville's landing. And I especially want to invite every one of my colleagues and you, Madam President, to attend that celebration. All along the Mississippi Gulf Coast, from my native Pascagoula west to Pass Christian and Bay St. Louis, hundreds of volunteers are already planning and preparing a vast array of festivals, parties, national sporting events, educational activities, and cultural exchanges with French cities, working to make our 1699 Tricentennial a truly wonderful celebration. In conjunction with next year's festivities will be the Mardi Gras Celebration in all the coast towns, from Texas to Florida. I believe all of my colleagues are familiar with Mardi Gras. But the Tricentennial celebrations are more than just festivities. They are celebrations of how really diverse we are in the deep South, how wonderfully varied and multi-cultural our Southern heritage, our American heritage really is, and how much we've accomplished over the past 300 years! Come to the Gulf Coast next year with us, and help us celebrate that diverse culture, and our hard-won economic prosperity. You might be surprised. You'll find that whether we are of French, Scottish, Irish, Spanish, Yugoslavian, Vietnamese, English, African-American or Native American ancestry, or a little of everything, we are all fair, honest, hardworking, and friendly to a fault. And we can all cook!! And we all talk with this accent!! So come down and join us, if not this year, certainly for the big Tricentennial celebration. A lot of faces and names will be familiar to you: Brett Favre, the great NFL quarterback, astronauts Fred Haise of Apollo XIII and Stuart Roosa, and the works of great American painter Walter Anderson and potter George E. Ohr. And the places to see!--the beautiful home of Jefferson Davis, the beaches, the southern way of life, the unique nightlife, the Mardi Gras, the 1699 celebrations and re-enactments. Madam President, I invite all my colleagues to come down to the Gulf Coast next year and join us in the wonderful celebration of our Tricentennial.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate resume consideration in executive session to debate the nomination of Frederica Massiah-Jackson.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business for not to exceed 1 hour, with the first 30 minutes under the control of Senator Byrd and the remaining 30 minutes under the control of Senator Roberts.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this morning, under a previous consent, the Senate will debate the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of David Satcher to be Surgeon General until 11 a.m. At 11 the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination. Under the agreement that we reached last week, if cloture is invoked, a second vote will occur immediately on the nomination itself. Therefore, Senators should be aware that there may be two consecutive rollcall votes beginning at 11 a.m. As under the order, from 12:30, then, to 2:15, the Senate will recess for the weekly policy luncheons to meet. Following the luncheons, the Senate may begin consideration of the nomination of Judge Massiah- Jackson to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Therefore, further votes can be expected to occur following the one or two votes at 11 o'clock. Also, I want to give Senators a reminder that a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the cloning bill will now occur Wednesday morning at 10 a.m. I thank my colleagues for their attention to this and I urge they pay particular attention to this cloning issue. The Senate needs to make a decision on whether or not we want to allow human cloning to go forward. There is a lot of concern about that. The President has indicated he is opposed to it and we need to take this issue up. I urge the Senate to at least vote to go to debate on the substance of the bill itself. The cloture motion is on the motion to proceed. I think we ought to have a beginning of a full discussion about this, see where there are disagreements and where maybe we can come to agreements. If we do not do that, this process will be allowed and there are going to be serious, I think, scientific, medical, ethical and moral questions that are going to be left dangling in the wind. If Senators have additional ideas that they would like to offer in the form of amendments to this human cloning issue, that is the way we should proceed. I urge the Senate to begin to pay close attention to this issue. The alternative is, perhaps, to do nothing, and I think that would be a very dangerous thing in this very important issue. Mr. President, I see a Senator seeks recognition. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I thank you, Mr. President,

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. This morning the Senate will be in a period for the transaction of morning business until 12 noon. At noon, as previously agreed to, the Senate will proceed to executive session to debate for up to 6 hours the nomination of David Satcher to be the Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary of HHS. As a reminder to all Members, no rollcall votes will occur during today's session of the Senate. However, the next rollcall vote will occur on invoking cloture on the Satcher nomination Tuesday at 11 a.m. If cloture is invoked on that nomination, then a second vote would occur immediately on the confirmation of the nomination. In addition, a cloture motion has been filed, on Thursday, on the motion to proceed to the cloning legislation. Therefore, a cloture vote will occur on Tuesday also. We will announce the exact time after consultation with the minority leader. This cloture motion is on the motion to proceed. Once again, I would like to note I do think this is an issue on which we should go forward. It is a complicated bill. There are some legitimate concerns that need to be addressed, or discussed at least. When Senators become familiar with the bill that has been crafted by Senator Bill Frist, who certainly knows the subject matter of medical research and science and the cloning issue, and then when they hear from Senator Bond and Senator Gregg and are able to be involved in discussion and debate, I think Senators will feel comfortable with what we are doing here and we should move this cloning legislation forward so that we will not have even the threat of human cloning. Also this week the Senate may consider the nomination of Margaret Morrow to be a district judge in California and the nomination of Frederica Massiah-Jackson to be a district judge in Pennsylvania. We will continue to work with the administration and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle with regard to a resolution on Iraq. As a reminder to all Members, the next rollcall vote then will occur at 11 a.m. on Tuesday morning to invoke cloture on the Satcher nomination.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the veto message to accompany H.R. 2631, the military construction appropriations bill, be deemed read and, as the Constitution provides, be spread upon the journal; and that the majority leader, after consultation with the minority leader, be authorized to proceed to the reconsideration of the said bill, the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding.