William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, if the Senator yield. I find it very difficult to hear what the distinguished Senator is saying.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we have reviewed the proposed change in this amendment. As I understand it, it requires a study to be made on informant payment, that the study must be completed within a year. As I said earlier, we found there are some serious problems in this area, and the modified amendment is satisfactory to this side.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the expiration or yielding back of time on the pending Bond amendment, it be temporarily set aside and a vote occur on, or in relation to, the Bond amendment at 1:15 p.m. today.

Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROTH. Let's wait on the rollcall votes. We can go ahead with the Reid amendment.

Mr. ROTH. That is fine.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Iowa.

Mr. ROTH. And I would also add there would be no second-degree amendment.

Mr. ROTH. Let's agree on the Bond amendment first; the agreement being 40 minutes divided between the two sides, and that Senator Bond would have the remaining 10 minutes.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. ROTH. And no second-degree amendments.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, what we are proposing for unanimous consent is 40 minutes for consideration of the amendment to be divided between the two sides, that it be agreed that the distinguished Senator has 10 minutes remaining on his side of the 20 minutes.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator that I do want to ask for an agreement on the 40 minutes, but I have to wait for Senator Kerrey to return. I will raise that when he comes.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, as I indicated before the distinguished Senator from Missouri spoke, we had a tentative agreement of 40 minutes for this amendment, with 20 minutes to a side. I ask that we unanimously agree to that with the time that the distinguished Senator used to discuss the amendment being deducted from the 20 minutes. I understand that is roughly 13 minutes. Is that satisfactory?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROTH. That would be fine.

Mr. ROTH. Is the Senator ready to yield the balance of his time?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would now like to turn to the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Kerrey. Senator Kerrey is offering an alternative pay-for package. I must oppose Senator Kerrey's package. The Kerrey amendment contains revenue raisers similar to the Roth amendment. There are a few additional items that I had considered in crafting my pay-for amendment. There, is, however, one very controversial revenue raiser in the Kerrey amendment. I think it is important that my colleagues focus their attention on it. Rather than modifying the rollover rules for Roth IRAs, which would allow more taxpayers to enjoy the benefits of the Roth IRA, the Kerrey amendment would reinstate the expired Superfund taxes. It is an undisputable fact that the present Superfund program needs immediate, substantial reform. I am a longstanding supporter of the Superfund program. It is critical that Superfund sites be cleaned up. It is a shame that the program has floundered over the past several years. Every Senator should feel the responsibility to get the Superfund program back up and running at full speed. The Superfund trust fund received its revenues from excise taxes on domestic crude oil and imported petroleum products, certain chemicals and imported derivative products, and a corporate environmental tax. These taxes expired a couple of years ago. If the taxes are extended, they will provide the necessary resources for Superfund cleanup activities. It is important to maintain the ``connection'' between the Superfund taxes and the Superfund program. It is the view of our Senior Republican colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee that this connection is important for both the politics and policy of Superfund. Our distinguished colleagues from the Committee on Environmental and Public Works, in particular, Senator Smith and Senator Chafee, have worked long and hard on Superfund reform legislation. They produced a bill, passed it out of committee, and have asked me to extend the expired Superfund taxes to cover the authorization period. Senators Smith and Chafee should be commended for moving Superfund forward, not undercut here on the Senate floor. I intend to support Senators Smith and Chafee's efforts. As they have communicated to me, unless the Superfund taxes are enacted directly in connection with a Superfund reform bill, any hope for the long-needed changes in this environmental program would be dashed. In deference to Senators Smith and Chafee, the Finance Committee did not include an extension of the Superfund taxes in either the IRS Reform bill that passed our committee unanimously or in the Roth amendment. I agree with Senators Smith and Chafee that the appropriate vehicle for extension of the Superfund taxes is their Superfund bill. As chairman, let me be clear--I pledge to work with Senators Smith and Chafee on Superfund with respect to the issues within Finance Committee jurisdiction. It is my hope that will move forward with a viable Superfund reform proposal. The recent progress made by the Environment and Public Works Committee is encouraging. If you are for Superfund reform, as I am, you need to support Senators Smith and Chafee. For this reason, I respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose the Kerrey amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Let me say, on this question of completion of consideration of this legislation, I strongly agree that we want to move as expeditiously as possible. It is my intent that we will complete the legislation tomorrow, staying as late as may be necessary. Mr. President, I would like to respond to some of the earlier comments made on the granting of waivers to the conflict of interest laws. I would like to point out that the waiver granted Mr. Rossotti was made by the same Office of Ethics that made a very persuasive argument here that we should not waive the criminal conflicts of interest as has been done under the legislation. Let me point out that there is a major difference between receiving a specific agency waiver under section 208 of the ethics law, which is what the Senator was referring to, and a wholesale statutory waiver of all the conflict of interest laws, which is what is contemplated in the IRS bill. Again, what Mr. Rossotti got was a specific agency waiver under section 208. To get a specific agency waiver under section 208, the employee must disclose the situation which gives rise to the conflict, and the agency need only to determine that the conflict--and I quote-- ``is not so substantial to affect the integrity of the services which the Government may expect from the employee.'' The problem with the IRS employee representative is that the conflicts are so substantial and pervasive that the representative would almost never qualify for a waiver. And that is not my conclusion, that is the conclusion of the Office of Government Ethics. Quoting from their letter dated March 27, 1998, the director wrote: While section 208 does contain a waiver provision, it applies only where the financial interest involved is ``not so substantial'' as to be deemed likely to affect an employee's service. We believe that it would be almost impossible for an officer of a union to legitimately meet the test set forth in the statute because of his own and the union's financial interest that would be affected by the matters before the Board. The director repeated this point in his letter dated May 1, 1998, saying: For those conflicts laws that do provide for waivers (not all do), we believe that it would be extremely difficult for a reasonable person to determine that the interests this individual Board Member will undoubtedly have through his or her affiliation with the organization could meet those waiver tests. The quoted language also raises a second important point, which is that some of the conflict of interest laws do not provide for waivers at all. Mr. President, the bottom line is this: A statutory waiver of all the criminal conflict of interest laws for one person is simply wrong, it is very bad policy, and it establishes a dangerous precedent. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.