Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I yield myself time that I might need under leader time. But for the information of the Senators who are here, I don't believe it will exceed more than about 10 minutes or so.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I know there has already been a good debate on this very important issue today. I do sincerely hope that we can produce a result that will provide prescription drug coverage for our low-income elderly, sick people who need this help. Certainly, from personal experience, I know of low-income elderly who need the help. My concern, though, is we do it in such a way that the costs are not so extreme that they wind up causing serious problems with our Medicare funds. In short, we don't want to blow a hole in the Medicare fund and cause all kinds of problems as a result of our good intentions. That is my first concern with the Graham-Kennedy proposal. I know it has been difficult to get a cost analysis. I am still not quite sure exactly what the cost has been estimated on this proposal, although I understand it is in the range of $600 billion over a 10-year period. I understand the plan perhaps may be defined as only covering 8 years, which doesn't begin until 2004, so it is pretty hard to match apples and apples. But over a 10-year period, I think it would probably wind up being at least $600 billion. The cost factor is something we have to be aware of in all these different plans. The other thing that bothers me is the universal coverage aspects. Regardless of income, you are going to get subsidized prescription drugs if you are, I guess, in a certain age category. That is my understanding. That is one of the fundamental differences. I have always said we should target sick low-income elderly or certainly, low- income elderly. But even using those three words produces a different number of people. We would have to think about that very carefully. But the idea that we would be providing subsidized prescription drugs to people who have income in retirement of $50,000, $60,000, I guess any amount, is a major concern I have. I am also disturbed about new revelations that I have discovered in the Graham-Kennedy amendment over the weekend. We had an earlier version that has been changed. Everybody is entitled to do that up until the time the different proposals were offered. But there are some critical changes that have been made, I presume, to reduce, at least to some degree, the cost estimates on this proposal. There are some details embedded in this plan that will have critical repercussions on the lives and health of 40 million seniors if the amendment were ever to become law. There are two critical differences that I want to point out today between the Graham-Kennedy amendment and Senator Graham's original bill, S. 2625. When you look at what those two apparently small changes actually mean in the operation of the prescription drug benefit, I believe you will want to oppose the Graham amendment in its current form. In the first change, which is on page 30 of the amendment, it has to do with copayments for brand name drugs that are not on the health plan's approved list. First, it would help if we review the original language in the Graham bill and what it had to say about the copayments. The original Graham bill said if you used a generic drug, you would face a copayment of $10 per prescription; that is, if you use a generic drug. If you use a brand name drug that was part of the so-called formulary--I will call it the approved list--you would face a copayment of $40 per prescription. And if you used, under diagnosis by a doctor, a brand name drug that was not part of your plan's formulary or approved list, you would face a copayment of $60 per prescription. So we had copayments for prescriptions of $10, $40, and $60. The current language, which has been changed in the Graham-Kennedy amendment, changes the last part. It changes the copayment for the brand name drug, which is not part of your health plan's approved list. The amendment now says that your prescription drug plan will not cover any brand name drug that is not on your health plan's approved list. In that case, you have to pay the full price of the drug. Here is the key language on page 30 of the amendment. We have it blown up here so Members can see it, even though they don't have it available to them to read out of the bill: Beneficiary responsible for negotiated price of nonformulary drugs: In the case of a covered outpatient drug that is dispensed to an eligible beneficiary and that is not included in the formulary established by the eligible entity for the plan, the beneficiary shall be responsible for negotiated price for the drug. Now, you got it right. The new plan does not cover brand name drugs, unless they are on your drug plan's approved list. You, the Medicare recipient, would have to pay for the drug out of your own pocket. Well, you might say that should not be too big a problem. But let's get into it a little deeper and you will see what is a further change in the bill and how the two of them tie together and cause problems. The other shoe drops on pages 61 and 62 of the Graham-Kennedy amendment. Let's look at the legislative language in this case: The eligible entity (health plan) shall include at least one, but not more than 2, brand name covered outpatient drugs for each therapeutic class as a preferred brand name drug in the formulary [or the approved list]. That means that under the current plan in the Democrat proposal, your health plan cannot include more than two name brand drugs for arthritis. Your plan cannot include more than two brand name broad antibiotic drugs, or not more than two brand name narcotic pain killers, or antiseizure drugs, or diabetic drugs, or hypertension drugs. In any case, it is no more than two. So look at what happens when you combine what you see on page 30 with what you see on page 62. If you need a name brand drug and if that brand name drug is not on the list of two on your approved list, then you are out of luck. Your new wonder drug plan here from the Democrats doesn't cover that drug. You would have to pay the full cost out of your pocket. So here is what that would lead to. Suppose you use an antihistamine every day and your health plan chooses to cover Allegra or Zyrtec, but not Claritin because it is limited to only two brand name antihistamine drugs. If you prefer Claritin because it clears up your symptoms better--just today, I was talking to an elderly person who was having problems, and I asked that person what they were taking because it obviously wasn't working. They told me it was one of the two that I mentioned here. I suggested maybe he try a Claritin D, since it seems to work better for me; certain drugs may work differently on different people, and doctors prescribe different brand name drugs. If the one you need the most is Claritin, which is not on the list, but these other two are--and you also have the Claritin reditabs--then you would have to pay $68 more per prescription to get the drug that has been prescribed to you, which is your choice, or the one you need. Now, that, of course, is a concern if you are in that category. It gets even worse if you look at other examples. For instance, antiarthritics. Suppose you need Celebrex but your health plan, limited to only two drugs, chooses Vioxx or Enbrel. As many seniors with arthritis know, arthritis drugs are very particular. What works for one senior citizen doesn't necessarily work for another. The Graham amendment limits your health plan to two of these four drugs. So if you need Celebrex, you could be out of luck, and you would then have to pay about $90 per prescription out of your pocket in order to get this particular arthritis drug. And then it can go into other areas, too; for instance, antidepressants. Under the Graham amendment, only two antidepressants would be covered. If you needed one not on the list, you would have to pay the cost out of your own pocket. It could be--in the case of Prozac--$110 to get the particular drug that you might need. Madam President, that is the plan we have before us. One thing that bothers me about it, too, is who decides exactly what two would be on this approved list? Is it going to be a board? What would be the criteria in deciding what two drugs would be on the list? This is a solution that I think causes a real problem. Some people say just take a generic. Substitute in a different brand name drug, they will argue. But sometimes you just cannot do it. Many times, drugs have specific effects on different people. So I think this is a major flaw that has been created by limiting or dropping out the $60 copayment per prescription, and then coming up with the two-drug limit. I was going over this information this afternoon and I wanted Senators to know about this change. I know that everybody is trying to work toward the right end result and with good intentions. But I do think that what is happening is you have limited choices and you guarantee that many seniors who need these specific drugs--Prozac is as good an example as you are going to find, where you would have to come up with a significant cost--$110--for the drugs. Before you vote tomorrow afternoon, I urge my colleagues to look at the changes that have been made. I presume they were made because of the cost impact. But you need to also look at what the medical impact is--the result of the decision that has been made. I urge my colleagues to vote against it on this basis, as well as on many others. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. How much time on the other side?

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

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, if I could inquire about the parliamentary situation or the time situation, how much time is left on this side of the aisle on this debate?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, while I object to the process under which this is being considered--I think we should have had this prescription drug issue go through the Finance Committee. We should have a normal debate, markup, and report out what would normally have been a bipartisan bill and probably a tripartisan bill. That is the way we should do business, and I predict right now that eventually the only way we are ever really going to get a real prescription drug result is we are going to have to go back and do that. Having said that, the bill before us everybody understood was going to be a vehicle to which Senator Daschle and others would be able to add prescription drug amendments or bills. That is what has happened. I think we will have sufficient time for debate later on tonight, on Friday, on Monday, on Tuesday morning, I presume, with the votes to occur one after the other on Tuesday afternoon. I think that is a fair way to proceed. Right up until the last few moments, we are getting people inquiring about what happens then. Well, of course, if one of them does get 60 votes, as is in the agreement, we could go back and have additional debate and amendments, or if they do not, then other options are available, other amendments to the pending issue that is being set aside or other proposals with regard to a different approach to the prescription drug issue. I know Senators Hagel, Ensign, Smith, Allard and Graham are interested in the Hagel amendment, and perhaps other amendments on this side. We also retain the right to move to commit this whole issue to the Finance Committee with instructions, and at some point it might wind up being the most reasonable and popular thing to do. But this is not cutting off other amendments, not cutting off this issue, just setting it aside. It is not blocking other options from being considered. The truth is, both sides have been working for the last couple of days to try to get to this point. So I think it is the fair way to proceed. Everybody will be heard. We will have a vote and then see where we are.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to recognize and say farewell to an outstanding leader, Dr. Donald L. Durham, upon his retirement from the Senior Executive Service as Deputy Director of the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command at the John C. Stennis Space Center. Throughout his career, Dr. Durham has served with distinction. It is my privilege to recognize his many accomplishments and to commend him for the superb service he has provided the Navy, the great State of Mississippi, and our Nation. Dr. Durham received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Physics and Mathematics from Centre College, Danville, KY in 1964; a Master of Science Degree in Oceanography, Math, from Texas A&M University in 1967; and a PhD in Physical Oceanography, Geophysics and Math, from Texas A&M University in 1972. Following his doctoral thesis, Dr. Durham joined the Army Corps of Engineers as a research oceanographer at its Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, MS. In 1978, he joined the staff of the Naval Oceanographic and Atmospheric Research Laboratory, NOARL, at the John C. Stennis Space Center, MS as an oceanographer responsible for analyzing and assessing numerous Navy oceanographic research programs and special projects, including several environmental acoustic/ oceanographic studies and tactical fleet exercises. From 1981-1986 at NOARL, Dr. Durham was Head of the Mapping, Charting and Geodesy, MC&G, Division, which was responsible for project management and technical performance of the integrated Navy Research Development, Test and Evaluation, RDT&E, program in MC&G. In 1986, Dr. Durham joined the staff of the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command, Stennis Space Center, MS and served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Program Integration until his selection as Technical/Deputy Director on January 1, 1989. As Technical/Deputy Director, Dr. Durham was the senior civilian manager and top scientific advisor responsible for the planning, coordination, management, direction and administration of broad, multi-disciplinary scientific, engineering and technical programs of the command. Under his guidance, the command has made tremendous inroads in the fields of basic and applied Oceanography through the application of supercomputing technology, providing detailed environmental analysis that our naval forces could have only dreamed about a few years ago. His persistence towards achieving excellence in his field of expertise is highly commendable. Dr. Durham's many awards include the Distinguished Executive Presidential Rank Award, Meritorious Executive Presidential Rank Award, DoD Secretary of Defense Meritorious Civilian Service Award, Secretary of Navy Distinguished Civilian Service Award, Department of the Navy Meritorious Civilian Service Award, three Army Corps of Engineers' Special Act/Service Awards, Presidential Letter of Commendation, two Navy Commendations for Special Achievement, Marine Technology Society Special Commendation Award, Defense Mapping Agency Research and Development Award, Kiwanis International Distinguished Service Award, Center College Distinguished Alumnus Award, Danville High School Distinguished Alumnus Award, Mississippi Academy of Sciences Research Award, Who's Who in the South and Southwest, International Who's Who of Professionals and the International Who's Who of Intellectuals. In addition, he has published over 50 professional papers, technical reports and presentations and served twice as guest editor for Marine Technology Society Journals. His professional affiliations include the Marine Technology Society, The Oceanography Society, The Society of Research Administrators, The Hydrographic Society of America, International Oceanographic Foundation, Mississippi Academy of Sciences and Sigma Xi. Also, he has served as Vice Chair and Chair of the Mississippi Science and Technology Commission; Member of Mississippi State University's External Research Advisory Council and Mississippi Economic Development Special Task Force; and board member of Mississippi Enterprise for Technology, Inc. and Mississippi Technology Alliance. Throughout his very distinguished career, Dr. Durham has served our great Nation with pride and excellence. He has been an integral element of, and contributed greatly to, the best-trained, best-equipped, and best-prepared naval force in the history of the world. Dr. Durham's superb leadership, integrity, and limitless energy have had a profound impact on our Nation's Oceanography community and he will be greatly missed in the Navy's Senior Executive Service. Dr. Durham retires as an SES-5 on August 3, 2002. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I wish Dr. Durham all the success in his future and thank him immensely for the invaluable 30-years of service he has provided to the United States of America.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation at this time?

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak under my leader time, probably for 8 or 10 minutes, on the issue that is related to this motion, and others may want to add to it.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I know others are going to want to speak on the pending motion.

Mr. LOTT. I yield to Senator Kennedy if he wants to make some clarification.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I understand there was discussion last night, and in the HELP Committee, about how to proceed on the substantive issue, and there was some understanding that some language would be worked out. I do not know the details of it, but I am hoping that whatever was agreed to in committee can be resolved in a satisfactory way. Without getting into how it was reported out of the committee and how we will proceed once that is clarified, I want to talk about the overall situation that causes me major concern. The Finance Committee has been meeting off and on for probably 5 years trying to decide the best way to proceed on prescription drugs. We have had repeated bipartisan meetings of the full committee, even this year. I have met, I think five times for as much as a couple of hours talking about the substance but it has always been a general discussion with no markup. Last week, even though we did two minor bills, there was no markup on prescription drugs in the Finance Committee. This week we were scheduled to take up another bill, but the meeting at 10 was cancelled and now the meeting at 2 was cancelled because I assume the chairman realized that the so-called tripartisan bill was going to be offered in the Finance Committee to whatever bill might have been brought up. This is legislation that has been developed by Senator Breaux, Senator Snowe, Senator Grassley, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Hatch. It is truly a bipartisan bill and tripartisan because it does have the support of Senator Jeffords. There is a determination not to allow the Finance Committee to act on this bill. The Finance Committee, for years, has been known as one of the most effective and bipartisan committees, whether it is welfare reform or trade legislation, Medicare, whatever it may be, but in this instance the Finance Committee is basically being told if they cannot get the votes for the so-called Kennedy-Graham-Miller proposal, they cannot act. I think we are beginning to debate once again in the wrong way on the Senate floor on a very important issue. The majority leader has twice before tried to ignore the Finance Committee and basically come straight to the floor. We saw what has happened, how long it takes for us to work through a bill that has not gone through a committee markup. That is why I continue to urge that the homeland security issue go to a regular markup in the Governmental Affairs Committee, and I am being told that is what is going to happen, because so many of the problems can be resolved at the committee level. If we bring these important issues to the Senate floor without them having been worked through committee, it is a prescription for a real problem, long debate and in this case likely no result. Last fall the majority leader and the Finance Committee chairman rammed a partisan stimulus bill through the Finance Committee. We told them at that time that process would fail because it set up a situation where we had to get 60 votes and we more than likely could not do that. Two months ago, the majority leader used a flawed process to bring trade legislation to the Senate floor, and we saw as a result of that it took us, I think, about a month to get it done, even though it was a bill that had bipartisan support on both sides. Four bills were brought together, the trade promotion authority, the Andean trade provisions, the GSP provisions, as well as trade adjustment assistance. It was very difficult to get that work done. But what we have today worries me even more. We are calling up the drug pricing and patents bill out of the HELP Committee. Then I understand at some point, a prescription drug bill, or bills, will be offered. No matter what is offered, it will have to get 60 votes. Prescription drugs would have to get 60 votes in the Senate. Why is that? One, we do not have a budget resolution, so we are going under the existing law which says a prescription drug bill cannot be brought up that exceeds, I believe it is $300 billion. If it does, it takes 60 votes. Also, a bill that is brought to the floor without going to the Finance Committee requires 60 votes. So we have two things that are happening with no budget resolution: we have a limit with the amount. If a bill exceeds $300 billion, it takes 60 votes. If it has not come through the Finance Committee, it will have to have 60 votes. I do not know what the scoring is on the so-called Kennedy-Graham bill. As of last Friday, or even yesterday, it was not clear. I am under the impression that it is well in excess of $800 billion, probably closer to a trillion over 10 years. It is a universal coverage provision, without being targeted to catastrophic problems or the elderly poor. We do not know for sure what the costs will be. I am being told that the costs might be less because, instead of it being for 10 years, it will be for 5 years, or maybe even 4 years. So we are setting up a situation where we cannot act. I think that is a tragedy. It is time we provide the elderly poor who are sick an opportunity to get help with their prescription drugs. Some States are dealing with this issue, but they are to the limit of what they can do. Others have not been able to deal with it. I certainly do not agree with this strategy, and the tragedy is that we are going to wind up without getting a result once again. Why not allow the Finance Committee to act? Let us see what is reported out. Maybe it would not be the tripartisan bill or the Kennedy bill. Maybe it would be something more along the lines of what Senator Hagel and Senator Ensign have proposed. I understand there are other Senators on both sides who will try to work together to find a way to get a result, something that can get 60 votes that would produce a result in this very critical issue. Senator Grassley has always worked to get bills out of the Finance Committee. They have always been bipartisan bills. I know he is disturbed by this and I believe Senator Baucus is disturbed that the Finance Committee has been cut out once again and that we are going with this convoluted process which, I guess, will provide some action on the pricing and patent bill. That is fine. If we want to bring up that bill and have debate and have some action on it, I think we ought to have debate and some votes and we could get to conclusion of that. But I think to use this as a vehicle to avoid the Finance Committee is a very big mistake. It is not just about politics, it is about results. Do we want to get a prescription drug provision through the Senate? If we want to do this, we can do it. But what we have before us will not produce a result, a product. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LOTT. I will be happy to let the Senator respond, and then I want to ask a question.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator from Pennsylvania will yield, let me clarify. There are several issues in play. First of all, there was the point the Senator from Pennsylvania was just making that there was some understanding that Members thought they had some modification of the bill that was going to be made that did not happen. Maybe that was just a misunderstanding, but that contributed to this problem. The second issue, this is not just about this drug pricing bill. Everybody knows this is going to wind up being the vehicle for debate on prescription drugs. There is concern about going forward in this way; that this is going to be a process to which I have referred as mutually assured destruction because whatever is offered is going to have to get 60 votes because it did not come from the Finance Committee and/or because it exceeds what the budget allows. And that is the point I wish to clarify. If I am misinformed, I would like to know that at this point. But my understanding clearly is that because we do not have a budget resolution passed by the Senate, we do not have any budget numbers, that the number we are operating on that is allowed for prescription drugs is $300 billion. That is what was identified last year, and that still is what applies. If you exceed that amount, you have to have 60 votes to overcome a point of order. Secondly, if it does not come from the Finance Committee, that in itself would require 60 votes to overcome a point of order. There are two reasons we will have to have 60 votes to pass any of the bills that may be offered in the prescription drug area. If that is not correct, then I stand corrected. If we could get a bill out of the committee that was under that amount, then there would not be a problem. At least one of the approaches, or maybe a couple approaches, that will be offered--the one by Senators Hagel, Ensign, and Gramm that would cost, I understand, somewhere between $150 billion to $170 billion--would not require the votes to overcome the point of order, but it would because it did not come through the Finance Committee. There is a simple solution to this: The Finance Committee should meet and vote. We have met for hours trying to figure out the right way to do this. It is difficult, it is complicated, and it is important. We met 4 hours, and I was there a couple hours last week. Yet we have not had a markup. Let's go to a markup, have debate, amendments, and see if the Finance Committee can report a bill. That is what I urge we do. Then we can have a bill that came out of the committee, that could have tripartisan support, and it would not be subject to a 60-vote point of order. We could pass it with 51 votes and get real help to people who need it--the elderly, sick, poor people--and we can do it this week.

Mr. LOTT. There was a markup. We marked up two minor bills last week, and there was a markup scheduled at 10 o'clock this morning. It was delayed to 2 o'clock and then cancelled. Why? Because Senators Snowe, Grassley, and others in the tripartisan effort served notice that they were going to offer a prescription drug package to a so-called minor bill. As a result of that, that markup was canceled. It really bothers me. It looks to me that we are headed for a situation where, when the smoke clears next week, no package will be left standing, and we will not have passed a bill with 60 votes and the people once again will not get the help they need. We seem to be striving to find a way not to do this. I do not understand it. I do not question the merits of the different bills. We can argue about them and we can debate them, but if the end result is nothing, is that good? As far as the underlying bill, if we knew debate was going to be on the drug-pricing issue, we could have started earlier, and we could probably have finished it this week. But there are two distinct issues that are riding on each other. It is a real problem. Once the prescription drug bills perhaps fail, I guess we will come back to the base bill, and it will probably pass and I assume it will be a bipartisan vote: Some for it; some against it. I want to clarify, it is my understanding that clearly it takes 60 votes because of the amount involved and because the Finance Committee will not have acted.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, reserving the right to object, first, I would say that I am glad we have reached the point where we are prepared to start trying to move some appropriations bills. We are way late in the year. But ordinarily, we move anywhere from as few as five to as many as nine in July. I hope we can begin to get on a roll here pretty soon on the appropriations bills because there are a lot of things we need to do, but there are a few things we must do. One of them is, we have to pass the bills to fund the Government for the next fiscal year, and the fiscal year ends the 1st of October. I am glad this is being asked for consideration now. I want to thank the managers and both sides of the aisle for allowing time for Senator McCain and others to review the managers' package. I understand that has been worked out and has been cleared. I think this is a good way to consider this legislation. There may be objection, but I want the Record to reflect that I strongly support this unanimous consent request and I support this legislation. It is more than what the President asked for in this particular category, but it still has to go to conference. I hope that it can be worked out in such a way that it would be acceptable to the President. There are those who are worried that any time a bill of this nature moves through the process, they lose an opportunity for critical matters to be considered. For instance, let me be specific, because I think Senator Kyl may talk about this, there are those from the West and maybe other areas that have had fires in their States--we know some of those in Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico--and floods, such as the one they have had in Texas. There has probably been well in excess of $1 billion used, involved in fighting the fires. Now that is going to be needed to deal with the floods in Texas. Those funds have been provided by transfer of funds from other accounts. One of two things is going to happen: We are going to replenish the funds taken from those accounts or those accounts are going to come up short. Understandably, the Senators from the States affected want to make sure there is going to be an opportunity for them to provide the funds that have been used or replace the funds that have been used to make sure money is there for upcoming needs. I am sympathetic to that. I don't think this is the last train out of the Senate. If this bill moves, there will be another one, and hopefully we will be moving two or three appropriations bills every week. There may be other considerations about what do we do if we don't get an agreement on the supplemental this week. I hope that within the next 24 hours something can be worked out on the supplemental appropriations bill, which, by the way, has been hanging around now for over 100 days, probably closer to 120 days by now. It is time to get an agreement. At some point, if we don't get the supplemental funds, we may wind up not having adequate funds for our airport security workers, the Transportation Security Agency, and it will begin to affect the Defense Department. I hope we can get all of this worked out. I am sympathetic to those worried about that and the fires. But I don't think that is justification for not moving forward on the military construction appropriations bill. I support this request. I want the Record to be clear about how I feel about the request and the legislation. With that, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, first, I thank Senators Sarbanes, Gramm, and Leahy for the work they have put into moving through the amendment on which we just voted. That allows us to move on to other germane or important amendments that will be offered. Amendment No. 4188 Madam President, I understand the Biden amendment will be set aside. So I send to the desk my amendment.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, if I could describe my amendment briefly. I understand Senator Biden is prepared to do the same thing. First, I should note, in at least one area they overlap in what they propose. In some other areas, there are some differences. But I don't see there are major problems. Senator Biden's amendment, as I understand it, just from looking at it quickly, would increase penalties in some areas that are not included in my amendment. What this amendment would do, though, is increase penalties for corporate fraud. Section 1 would increase maximum sentences for fraud. Mail fraud and wire fraud statutes are often used in criminal cases involving corporate wrongdoing. So obviously this is an area that is of concern and needs to be addressed. This section proposes doubling the maximum prison term for these crimes from 5 years to 10 years by amending 18 U.S.C. sections 1341 and 1343. The second section would enact stronger laws against document shredding. Current law prohibits obstruction of justice by a defendant acting alone, but only if a proceeding is pending and a subpoena has been issued for the evidence that has been destroyed or altered. Timing is very important. Most people understand that shredding documents is a very bad thing to do. Obviously, you cannot do it if there is something pending or if there is a subpoena. But as was the case recently, they knew that an investigation was underway and a subpoena was likely, and the shredding of documents went forward. So this section would allow the Government to charge obstruction against individuals who acted alone, even if the tampering took place prior to the issuance of a grand jury subpoena. I think this is something we need to make clear so we do not have a repeat of what we saw with the Enron matter earlier this year. Section 3 freezes payments of potential wrongdoers. This section would allow the SEC, during an investigation, to seek an order in Federal court imposing a 45-day freeze on extraordinary payments to corporate executives. Again, this year we have seen just that sort of thing happening. While an investigation is underway, basically rewards were given to these corporate executives. While it would require a court order, there would be this 45-day freeze. The targeted payments would be placed in escrow, ensuring that corporate assets are not improperly taken from an executive's personal benefit. If an executive is charged with violations of Federal securities laws prior to the expiration of the court order, the escrow would continue until the conclusion of legal proceedings, again, with court approval. Section 4 involves sentencing guideline enhancements for crimes committed by corporate officers and directors. This section would implement President Bush's call on the Sentencing Commission to quickly adopt the new ``aggravating factor'' to provide stronger penalties for fraud when the crime is committed by a corporate officer or director. This ``aggravating factor'' is a term of art used in the law. It would provide, under this section, stronger penalties for such fraud. Section 5 would bar corporate officers and directors who engage in serious misconduct. Under current law, only a Federal court can issue an order prohibiting a person from acting as an officer or director of a public company. The SEC cannot order this remedy in its own administrative cease-and- desist proceedings, even in a case of securities fraud where the person's conduct would otherwise meet the standards for imposing such a bar. This section would grant the SEC the authority to issue such orders if a person had committed securities law violation and his or her conduct demonstrated unfitness to serve as an officer or a director. These points are all points that were made by the President, asking that legislation be provided to provide for these additional increases and strengthening of the law. We have found clearly that in recent events there has been improper conduct. There have been questionable accounting procedures, and there has probably been some illegal conduct. So you can put all the laws in the world on the books, but if people act in bad faith, violate the law, you can never legislate morality. We have also seen that there are some cases where the law had some loopholes or where it was not timely or where it was not strong enough. One example, of course, is where there has been shredding. Another example is the very bad image of corporate executives taking increased payments, extraordinary payments, while they are being investigated. You can't have that sort of thing. I think these are basic things that should be added to this bill. It would strengthen the bill. I have checked with a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle. There is general support for this legislation. I thank Senator Biden for allowing me to make this brief statement about the amendment. Again, I emphasize that there are some similarities between this amendment and his amendment, but he does add additional penalties beyond what is in this proposal. But I did want to put into the bill what the President specifically recommended.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, Madam President.

Mr. LOTT. I do reserve the right to object but state in the beginning I would not and will not object. I think this is an appropriate way to proceed. This is something that has been fully disclosed to all on both sides of the argument. We certainly understand and respect the desire of the Senators from Nevada, Mr. Reid and Mr. Ensign, to have an opportunity to make their case and to maximize their effort against this proposal. I also made it clear that it was the intent of the proponents, with the leadership of Senator Murkowski and others on both sides of the aisle, that under the law there is a time limit. We have to act on this issue by July 27 or, in fact, this proposal could not go forward. The veto of the Governor, in effect, would be upheld by inaction. Not wanting to get squeezed down to the end of the session and having it unclear as to how we would proceed, we thought the fair thing to do to both sides was to say on this Tuesday, we would move to proceed to the issue which would be nondebatable unless agreement was worked out to the contrary. As a result of that being what our intent was, the motion was made, and we have now worked out this unanimous consent agreement which is agreeable to all sides. There would be debate before the vote, and then there would be a vote on the motion to proceed which would be really, in fact, the vote. So this afternoon somewhere not later than 5:45, or perhaps earlier, as I understand it--Senator Reid can maybe comment on this--there would be a vote on the motion to proceed. While nothing else is precluded, it would be clearly my understanding that it would not be necessary to have a vote on final passage if the motion to proceed is agreed to. Everybody understands that is the vote. We have checked on both sides of the aisle, and this agreement is acceptable. That would be the vote. Another good thing about this is it allows everybody to know when the critical vote will come. It also means, instead of 10 hours, we will go 4\1/2\ hours. There is no demand or desire that we go beyond that. Then we can get back to other business; hopefully, defense-related appropriations bills and the auditing bill and get that work done this week. This is a fair way to proceed. Everybody is on notice. I am glad to work with the opponents and proponents to come to this agreement. With that statement, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains on each side at this point?

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I will use my leader time. I realize Senators are expecting to vote on or around 6 o'clock. I hope we will be able to do that. In that vein, I will not speak too long, but I have to rise to urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed. That is the vote. That will be the only vote today. This is not something that is new. This is not a proposal that we are rushing into. In fact, the entire time I have been in the Senate, and 6 years when I was in the House, this process has been under way. It is 20 years that this has been in the making. Nobody is being surprised. Nobody is being rammed. There are not going to be any dangers. This is a part of a very long, thoughtful process based on science. Twenty years and $8 billion have already been expended. This is something we must do. Nuclear power is an important part of our overall energy needs. It provides clean, efficient power. We need to include that in our diverse package of power production. I am still dumbfounded to hear people express concerns about how it can be moved, how it can be stored. Senator Murkowski and a bipartisan delegation took a look 10 years ago at how Sweden, France, and the Japanese have dealt with this problem. Yet in America we have not been able to come to grips with our future needs and how we are going to deal with the problem. We should not overexaggerate what this decision today will do. The Senate today will decide very simply whether to permit the Secretary of Energy to apply for a license to operate a repository at Yucca Mountain. It is not the end of the process. It is the very beginning. I know from experience we are going to look at this issue every year, congressionally, as we should, because funds will have to be used as we go through the process. Senators from across the country are going to want to know what is happening, how it is going. This is just to begin the important part of the process. We should not abandon all these years of effort. That is what would happen. If we don't pass this motion to proceed, vote yes on it, I don't know how we go forward. We will have wasted years and billions of dollars in research and effort. In addition, there is a tremendous problem with the exposure the Government would have as a result. If we don't go forward, our Federal Government could face billions of dollars in liability for breach of contractual obligations. Remember this: If we don't proceed, a lot of companies are going to start entering into private contracts. They will start making arrangements for other types of repositories, probably not as safe, not as well thought out, not based on as much science, and also still having to be moved. When you look at various States and where their nuclear waste is and its condition, you see that something is going to happen. Having a repository that we have studied so much and that will be so secure is better than the alternative of the liability to which we would be exposed and what then would begin to happen all over the country. We should not jeopardize our only realistic means of meeting global climate concerns by cutting back 20 percent of clean electric power that is supplied by these nuclear reactors. As a matter of fact, I am hoping we will have some more nuclear reactors activated in the Tennessee Valley Authority region. Clearly, there is a way that could be done, and there are some nearly completed reactors that could be put back on line. It would help us with our energy needs as we move toward an ever growing economy. If you are going to have economic growth, you have to have power. I have just visited some other countries that have seen real growth, and one of the concerns they have--a country such as Ireland--is that growth. They have new companies, but they are struggling to keep up with meeting the power needs that go with the economic growth. If we don't proceed, do we go back to the beginning? Do we debate again the repository siting and reexamine all the feasibilities of other sites such as the Hanford Reservation or the Michigan Peninsula. Where would it be? What would we do? Also, we would have to consider existing Federal reservations such as Hanford and Savannah River. The complications that would be caused and the irresponsible consequences of not agreeing to the motion to proceed today are almost incomprehensible. There has been a lot of discussion about transportation, moving this waste around the country. How can we deal with it? Certainly, getting this waste moved to a single repository where we could have very strong security is much better than what we have now with all of these sites in 39 States that are sitting there reaching their limits and exposed. It would be much easier certainly to guarantee the security in a single place. I have also taken the time to look at how this transportation is handled. These moving devices are very secure. You wouldn't believe all the effort that goes into making sure they won't be exposed to any kind of accident. To my knowledge, there has never been one that has caused a problem. When you look at what we have done to paint this dire picture of what might happen, the truth is, the picture of what will happen if we don't take this action now, after all this time, all this money, all this effort, all this science--I don't know where we go from here. It all boils down to this vote for 39 States, including my State. If not now, when in the world are we going to do it? And if not in this way, if not in this place, where? There are a lot of Senators who would have to begin to be very nervous about a whole reevaluation process and what it would mean to their sites. I understand the Senators from Nevada. They have made a valiant effort. They feel so strongly about it. I understand that. But I think the Senate is committed to working with them to make sure that as we move forward, it is based on good science and also that we do it in the most secure fashion. Let me again urge that we vote yes and that we do it within the next few minutes. I yield the floor.