Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I withhold, and I will be glad to yield, Mr. President, to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before I talk about today's schedule, I do want to commend a number of Senators who have been doing yeomen's work over the past 2 days. Even though we haven't had a lot of recorded votes, we have been making good progress. I remind the Senate that we did come to an agreement after actually at least 3 years of going back and forth on a bipartisan Amtrak bill, which passed on Friday on a voice vote. That now will be in conference, and I think there is even a chance that we could get an agreement on that conference report before we go out. If we don't, it will be something we should reach early agreement on in conference when we come back after the first of the year. Also, the Senate did agree to pass a fix with regard to ISTEA, or the highway infrastructure bill, which is now before the House for their consideration. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. After consultation with many, many Senators and especially the Democratic leader, I now ask that the Senate turn to the D.C. appropriations bill, H.R. 2607, and Senator Stevens be recognized to offer a substitute amendment and that there be 2 hours of debate to be equally divided in the following fashion: 30 minutes between Senators Stevens and Byrd, 30 minutes between Senators Faircloth and Boxer, 30 minutes between Senators Gregg and Hollings, 30 minutes between Senators McConnell and Leahy. I further ask that no other amendments or motions be in order, and following the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the amendment be agreed to and the bill be advanced to third reading and passage, and all occur without further action or debate. I further ask that following the adoption, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees, all without further action or debate. I ask unanimous consent that in the event that H.R. 2607 is sent to the President without a conference, the Committee on Appropriations, with the concurrence of the chairman and ranking member, be permitted to file in the Record within 2 days of final passage and to print as an official document of the Senate a report on the final version of H.R. 2607 as enacted by the Congress. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of H.R. 2607, the Senate proceed to S. 1502 regarding D.C. scholarships, the bill be read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without further action or debate.

Mr. LOTT. I want to confirm, as most Senators certainly know, there will be no further rollcall votes tonight, and while the Senators have this 2 hours of time, we don't anticipate the full time will be used. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Daschle for making those comments. He is certainly right. Senator Stevens is very persistent, as is Senator Byrd, his worthy ally in this effort. This has been a difficult agreement to put together, but it is the right thing to do at this hour. That way, we will have this package in the House and they will have a vehicle with these three bills on which they can act, and that will lead into, hopefully, final passage tomorrow. I do commend them for their very fine work. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, last year, after years of legislative consideration and debate, Congress enacted into law the Line Item Veto Act. For the next several years, this act gives the President authority, within carefully circumscribed limits, to cancel particular items of appropriation, direct spending, or limited tax benefits. The President must send Congress a special message reporting his cancellations within five days after he approves the bill containing the spending or tax provisions, and Congress may then consider, under expedited procedures, whether to pass a new law disapproving the President's cancellation. Congress delegated this responsibility to the President as a means of furthering our goal of balancing the federal budget. Congress's enactment of the Line Item Veto Act followed vigorous debate in the Senate, in which some opponents raised doubts about the law's constitutionality. All Members recognized that these constitutional questions likely ultimately would be resolved only in the Supreme Court. Last January, the day after the law took effect, in the case of Byrd v. Raines, six of our colleagues filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act. On January 22, 1997, the Senate directed the Senate Legal Counsel to appear on behalf of the Senate as amicus curiae in Byrd v. Raines to defend the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act. In June the Supreme Court dismissed the case on the basis that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring their suit. The Court did not address the constitutional question. In August, the President began using the Line Item Veto Act's cancellation authority for the first time. As a result of the President's cancellations, three new actions have recently been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia again challenging the constitutionality of the Act. The plaintiffs assert that the Act violates the lawmaking provisions of Article I of the Constitution by authorizing the President to nullify the effect of portions of recently enacted laws. These challenges call into question the full range of cancellation authority provided by Congress in the Act, as the three cases address direct spending, discretionary appropriations, and limited tax benefits, respectively. Mr. President, as with the Senate's appearance amicus curiae in Byrd v. Raines, appearance in these cases as an amicus curiae would again enable the Senate to present to the courts its reasons for enacting the Lien Item Veto Act and the basis for the Senate's conviction that the law is consistent with the Constitution. Accordingly, this resolution would authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to appear in these cases in the name of the Senate as amicus curiae to support the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act. The Senate would not take a position on questions about the legal standing of any of these plaintiffs, as it did not in the prior litigation. However, as in the earlier litigation, the Senate Legal Counsel will be expected to describe to the courts, in the course of supporting the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act, the statutory limits embodied in the Act that constrain the President's use of this authority to the particular circumstances and conditions carefully prescribed by the Act. Finally, this resolution also would authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to appear in the name of the Senate as amicus curiae to support the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act in any other cases challenging the constitutionality of the Act that may occur during the adjournment of the Senate, if authorized to do so by the Joint Leadership Group. This is the procedure the Senate has used in the past to protect its legal interests during adjournments. S. Res. 153 Whereas, in the case of Sherry Yvonne Moore v. Capitol Guide Board, Case No. 1:97CV00823, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, a subpoena has been issued for the production of documents of the Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate; Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent Members, officers, and employees of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony or document production relating to their official responsibilities; Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate; Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistently with the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate is authorized to produce documents relevant to the case of Sherry Yvonne Moore v. Capitol Guide Board, except where a privilege should be asserted. Sec. 2. That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent the Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate in connection with the production of documents in this case.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the case of Sherry Yvonne Moore v. Capitol Guide Board, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under the Congressional Accountability Act, involves claims of employment discrimination by the plaintiff, former employee of the Sergeant at Arms who worked for the Capitol Guide Service. The plaintiff in this case has issued a subpoena for documents to the Senate Sergeant at Arms. The enclosed resolution would authorize the Sergeant at Arms to produce such documents, except where a privilege or objection should be asserted. It wou8ld also authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to represent the Sergeant at Arms in connection with the production of such documents. S. Res. 154 Whereas, in the case of Magee, et al. v. Hatch, et al., No. 97-CV02203, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the plaintiffs have named Senator Orrin Hatch as a defendant; Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(1) (1994), the Senate may direct its counsel to defend its Members in civil actions relating to their official responsibilities: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Senator Hatch in the case of Magee, et al. v. Hatch, et al.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Magee, et al. v. Hatch, et al. is an action arising out of Congress's enactment of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The suit names Senator Orrin G. Hatch and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich as the sole defendants. This resolution authorizes the Senate Legal Counsel to represent Senator Hatch in this matter. If so authorized, the Senate Legal Counsel will seek dismissal of the complaint.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business until the hour of 1:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I believe the Senator is right, that is the pending business, and perhaps we could do that.

Mr. LOTT. Is that the commission amendment?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond to the Senator, I would like him to allow us to get this time now and give us an opportunity to talk with him and others. I should note that when we go back, of course, to this issue, I believe the pending amendment is the Inhofe amendment. I presume there would be other amendments in relation to that issue, maybe a second-degree amendment. I think maybe the Senator would want to talk to his leadership and give me a chance to talk to Senator Inhofe as to how we would proceed on that, and we could use this next 50 minutes to do that.

Mr. LOTT. I believe we already had an agreement by unanimous consent we would go back to Senator Kerrey, followed by Senator Roth. Others may want to comment, but I would like to ask now there be a period of morning business until the hour of 4 o'clock and Senators be limited to speak for 10 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me withdraw the last part of my unanimous-consent request so we would just be asking we would do what we are going to do on the schedule and go back to this discussion and we will talk further about that. I think the information we will give Senators will answer some of the Senator's questions.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be able to proceed with leader time so that we can give information to the Senators about the schedule. I know there are Senators waiting to get some information on that. If the Senator would agree to that, then we will return to his discussion to be followed by Senator Roth. That would be my request.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, there is a move to combine the three remaining appropriations bills into one bill and to send that document to the House. The Appropriations Committee intends to meet on this immediately following these announcements. Those bills are the D.C., the foreign ops and the State-Justice-Commerce bills. It is the hope of the leadership that we could clear this bill for passage without a rollcall vote. Senator Daschle and I will be working on both sides of the aisle to make sure Members understand what is happening here, what is involved, and it may take some time for us to determine that. That could be as much as an hour or so. If we could get it cleared, then that would be the way we would intend to proceed on these combined appropriations bills. Senators will be notified when the next vote would occur, if one should be necessary on this. Now, Senator Daschle and I were just talking. We think we should pass this by voice vote, and we will encourage Senators to allow this to happen. But if we can't get it cleared, one option we would have would be to have this vote occur, and I would need to consult with Chairman Stevens further before we do it, but one option, if we can't get it cleared in a reasonable period of time, would be to perhaps have a vote on that issue tomorrow around 1:30 or so. At this point we just can't tell you with absolute certainty how we are going to proceed on that bill. Again, we will pursue the voice vote, and if we can't get that done, then we will notify you when the actual vote would occur. Would the Senator like to respond to that before we go to these other issues?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it would be my intent at this time to put in a request for morning business until the hour of 4 p.m. so that we can talk about these various issues and see where we may go.

Mr. LOTT. One option, if the Senator will yield back so that I can comment, Senator Stevens even suggested we might want to have another vote later on this afternoon or later on at 5, 6 or 7 o'clock. But we will try to avoid that, and when we can give you some further confirmation on when the next recorded vote will occur, we will let you know--hopefully within an hour. Now, I might also note that I am being told that an agreement has been reached on the FDA reform conference report, that papers are being done now, and hopefully Senator Jeffords is working with all the interested parties on that. Within an hour or so, we hope we could get those papers ready and get that done on a voice vote. The Senator is now saying we may have to have a recorded vote. If we do, then we might have to look at doing that later on or maybe even tomorrow. So we will have to consult on that. One other one we may try to do is adoption and foster care. We understand perhaps there has been agreement on that legislation in a bipartisan way. We are trying to clear that. So that answers part of Senator Dorgan's inquiry. We have a couple of issues that we may have ready to go here pretty quickly. That is why we would like to have the option to discuss with the Senator and others moving one or the other of these bills or the conference report.

Mr. LOTT. I appreciate the Senator's comments. She has been discussing it with Senators on both sides of the aisle. I just saw her talking with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee at lunch. So I know she is going to find a way to address this issue in a way that she would be comfortable with, and we will continue to work with her on that. Does the minority leader wish to say anything more?

Mr. LOTT. Other possible items for consideration are the Eximbank conference report, and Senator Daschle and I are working on the Executive Calendar nominations. I congratulate everybody for their cooperation on the Labor-HHS- Education appropriations bill that just passed. The conference report that we have been working on for weeks and weeks and weeks passed 91 to 4. It just shows what can happen when we finally get around to taking a stand and getting a vote. I would be glad to yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield for a brief question?

Mr. LOTT. Senator Daschle and I would like to be able to go over what we expect to be happening here the rest of the day, and tomorrow. I know that Senator Roth wants to respond. Can we get some idea of how much time the Senator from Nebraska is going to have involved in this discussion?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to state my strong support for S. 621, and express my disappointment that a few Senators have prevented this body from considering the bill this year. A bipartisan majority of Senators supports PUHCA repeal, and I will bring it to the floor for consideration and passage early next year. Both Chairmen D'Amato and Murkowski, along with Senators Dodd and Sarbanes, deserve great credit for helping to move this legislation forward. It is unfortunate that their efforts on both sides of the aisle were unsuccessful this session. They know--as do the other 20 cosponsors of S. 621--that repealing PUHCA would remove an outdated regulatory burden that restricts the operations of a handful of electric and gas utilities. Mr. President, PUHCA was enacted in 1935 to eliminate holding company abuses of that time, and it was quite successful. In the last six decades, however, Congress and the States have enacted a whole spectrum of securities, antitrust and utility regulatory statutes that make it impossible for those abuses to occur again. Even the Securities and Exchange Commission, the agency tasked to enforce PUHCA, has said that PUHCA is no longer needed and should be repealed. Now, long past its usefulness, PUHCA stands in the way of competition. While some argue that PUHCA should only be repealed as a part of comprehensive restructuring legislation, I believe that incremental steps toward competition are responsible and realistic accomplishments for the 105th Congress. Repealing PUHCA should be the first incremental step. Mr. President, crafting comprehensive restructuring legislation requires Congress to consider a whole host of difficult issues-- stranded cost recovery, State versus Federal authority, renewable resources, public power subsidies, environmental impacts. The list goes on and on. There is no consensus among Senators on these issues, but there is an overwhelming amount of support for PUHCA repeal. Instead of searching for the perfect total package, let's focus on the incremental steps toward competition that we can agree on. PUHCA is the biggest single Federal obstacle to the advancement of retail competition, and it should be repealed now. Several States have already adopted or are in the process of adopting retail competition plans without comprehensive utility restructuring legislation. We can't allow the Federal Government to block progress in the States. Without PUHCA repeal, retail competition in the States simply cannot flourish. Mr. President, now is the time for PUHCA repeal. Although the few opponents of S. 621 have prevented the Senate from considering the bill this year, I will bring it to the floor early next year. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in repealing this outdated and burdensome Federal obstacle to competition in the utility industry.