Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Joseph Dial, of Texas, to be a Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to recognize and say farewell to an outstanding naval officer and good friend, Rear Adm. (select) Jay M. Cohen. For the past 4\1/2\ years, Rear Admiral (select) Cohen has served with distinction as the Navy's Deputy Chief of Legislative Affairs, and it is my privilege to recognize his many accomplishments and to commend him for the superb service he has provided this legislative body, the Navy, and the Nation. A native of New York City, Rear Admiral (select) Cohen was commissioned as an ensign upon graduation from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1968. Since then, Rear Admiral (select) Cohen has spent the majority of his career patrolling the ocean depths as a Navy submariner. Following submarine training, he began his submarine service aboard U.S.S. Diodon (SS 349) in San Diego. Nuclear power trained, he has served in the engineering departments of U.S.S. Nathaniel Greene (SSBN 636) and U.S.S. Nathan Hall (SSBN 623), and as the executive officer aboard U.S.S. George Washington Carver (SSBN 656). In 1985, Rear Admiral (select) Cohen took command of U.S.S. Hyman G. Rickover (SSN 709) and skippered the ship on three deployments. When not underwater, Rear Admiral (select) Cohen has likewise served with distinction on the staff of Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, as senior member of the Nuclear Propulsion Examining Board and on the staff of the Director of Naval Intelligence. He also commanded U.S.S. L.Y. Spear (AS 36), a submarine tender in Norfolk, VA. Following this command tour, he reported, in April 1993, to the Secretary of the Navy's staff as the Deputy Chief of Legislative Affairs. Among Rear Admiral(select) Cohen's many awards and decorations are five Legions of Merit and three Meritorious Service Medals. He is both submarine and surface warfare qualified. During his tenure as the Deputy Chief of Legislative Affairs, Rear Admiral (select) Cohen provided the Senate with timely support and accurate information on Navy plans and programs. His close work with the Congress and steadfast devotion to the Navy mission helped ensure that the U.S. Navy remained the best-trained, best-equipped, and best- prepared naval force in the world. Faced with countless challenges and a multitude of complex and sensitive issues, Rear Admiral (select) Cohen's unflappable leadership, integrity, and limitless energy had a profound and positive impact on the U.S. Naval Service. As a testament to his extremely valuable contributions to the national security of this country, the Navy recently selected him to flag rank and I am pleased to say that the Senate recently confirmed his nomination. The Chief of Naval Operations will pin on his star Friday, November 7, in the Pentagon. With this well-deserved promotion, Admiral Cohen will continue his outstanding service to the Navy and the Nation as he moves on to positions of even greater responsibility. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I wish Rear Adm. (select) Jay Cohen fair winds and following seas. I know we will see and hear from him again.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to table the motion. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. First, let me say to my colleague that I am very much in favor of encouraging Federal and State agencies put regulatory effort where the real risks are. We don't have so much money and so much desire to regulate that we can afford to spend our time and money regulating nonexistent risks. There is far too much regulating of fictitious risks going on in our economy today. So I think the emphasis on looking at actual risk is desirable. And the other side of it is that situations that pose a real risk should be covered, absolutely should be covered. We think the Lott-Daschle bill will encourage the States to look at risks that are not now covered and increase participation in one-call notification programs accordingly. In answer to the contractors' contention, I would reply to them that the intent of this bill is to strengthen State one-call programs and not to weaken them. This is what the Congress is saying to the States with the Lott-Daschle bill: ``Strengthen your programs. Strengthen your programs, and you will be rewarded.'' And the Department of Transportation, which will administer this program, is saying the same thing. I recently received a letter from Secretary of Transportation Rodney E. Slater supporting the Lott- Daschle one-call notification bill. I put that letter in the Record of October 22. In his letter, Secretary Slater says, ``safety is the Department of Transportation's highest priority.'' Secretary Slater is not interested in weakening State one-call notification programs. A State that submits a grant application to the Department of Transportation with a weakened State one-call program is not going to see that application approved. The Department of Transportation will make sure of that. Finally, the Lott-Daschle bill does not provide for a one-size-fits- all Federal determination of what constitutes a risk. Under the bill the intent is that the determination of risk will be made at the State level, where local conditions and practices can be taken into account. This is another reason that I'm sure we don't need to be concerned about weakening State laws. States with strong laws are not going to undertake to weaken them in order to apply for a grant from the DOT under this bill. They know that DOT is trying to strengthen these laws. It just wouldn't make any sense. A State which successfully confronted special interests and enacted a strong one-call program would be both unlikely and foolish to try to use this bill to weaken these programs. If a State were that misguided, the DOT is certain to reject their application. This bill will mean stronger State one-call notification laws, more participation and better enforcement. That's why 15 Senators want to advance this legislation.

Mr. LOTT. I believe the bill does attempt to be evenhanded. For example, finding (2) of the bill points to excavation without prior notice as a cause of accidents, but in the same phrase it includes failure to mark the location of underground facilities in an accurate or timely way as a cause as well. In truth, these are both causes of accidents, and the bill proposes to deal with both. Both excavators and underground facilities can stand to improve performance in the area of compliance with one-call requirements. There is no intent in this bill to blame one side or the other. If the Senator believes that the bill unfairly stigmatizes contractors, I would want to right the balance, because that is not what is intended. What we are trying to do is to set up a process where the States can address problems we all know are there. There are too many accidents at underground facilities. Let's see what we can do to improve that situation. Let's see what we can do cooperatively, underground facility operators and contractors, Federal agencies and State agencies. Let's use incentives rather than preemption and regulation. That is what this bill is trying to do.

Mr. LOTT. I can assure the Senator, most emphatically, that this will not happen. This is not a regulatory bill. The Lott-Daschle bill presumes that each State provides the legislative foundation for the one-call notification program in that State. Remember, all one-call programs are currently State programs, and this will remain unchanged. The sole aim of the bill is to encourage States to act voluntarily to improve their own State one-call programs by providing fiscal assistance for those States who want to do more. Furthermore, this legislation does not regulate through the back door by imposing a Federal mandate on the States to modify their existing one-call programs. Rather, it makes funding available to improve these programs. To be eligible for the funding, the programs must meet certain minimum standards, but even those standards are performance- based, not prescriptive. And States will be involved in the rulemaking which establishes these standards. No State has to apply for these funds if it doesn't wish to. The bill does not preempt State law. Let me repeat that; no State law will be preempted. States continue to their responsibility for the regulations for notification prior to excavation and for location and for marking of underground facilities. Nothing in this bill changes this. States prescribe the details of one-call notification programs. This not something the Federal Government should do or is able to do effectively. This bill is not intended to lead to a Federal regulatory program on the backs of small business. It is not intended to do this, and it will not do this.

Mr. LOTT. The Senator is correct. The minority leader and I introduced as S. 1115 on July 31. Thirteen of our colleagues have joined us as cosponsors to the bill, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on the bill on September 17. I will be happy to respond to the Senator's questions.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Therefore, the next rollcall vote would occur at 2:30 p.m. That vote would be on the cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to the fast-track legislation. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business until the hour of 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. Following morning business, the Senate would then stand in recess under the previous order until 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business until 7 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to proceed for 5 minutes notwithstanding rule XXII.

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

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

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. In light of the objection, I now move to proceed to S. 1269, and send a cloture motion to the desk. Cloture Motion

Mr. LOTT. I now withdraw the motion.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this cloture vote will occur on Tuesday, and I ask the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I think we are ready to go with the regular order.

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I fully agree with the Senator. I do not believe the Department has followed the provisions established under the National Highway System Designation Act. I am disappointed. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has been working to advance legislation expanding the Department of Transportation's use of pilot programs and regulatory exemptions. I will be working with the committee to help reduce, as much as is safely possible, some of the unnecessary regulations and paperwork imposed on the motor carrier industry. Given the Department's handling of the motor safety demonstration project to date, I am very concerned about the Department's sincerity in implementing such legislatively mandated programs. I will also be working very closely with the committee to ensure that the mandates we have already passed are complied with by the Department of Transportation.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would add that, at this time, there is not a single applicant for the motor safety demonstration project. This has not kept the Department from heralding the project as a centerpiece of their so-called regulatory reform. For example, in the August 11, 1997 issue, of the industry publication ``Transport Topics,'' the Department's Associate Administrator for Motor Carriers, George Reagle, referred to the project as a key part of the administration's effort to ``provide common-sense government * * *.'' which offers ``the opportunity to further regulatory reform''. Mr. Reagle further stated that ``This early step toward reform will set the tone for our entire regulatory future * * *.'' A centerpiece with no participants is an empty centerpiece. Words of self-praise are an inadequate response. The law was clear and implementation is overdue.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for raising this issue. The letter and intent of the law concerning this program are not being carried out at all. The National Highway System Designation Act passed in 1995, and section 334 mandated the motor carrier regulatory relief and safety demonstration project. It required the Department of Transportation to implement this project no later than August, 1996. However, the Department of Transportation did not even publish Final Guidelines for the project until June 10 of this year--1 year later than required by law.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent there now be a period for morning business until the hour of 2 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.