LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

Search Terms: Abortion AND Bankruptcy Reform, House or Senate or Joint

Document 11 of 18.

June 30, 2000, Friday

SECTION: COMMERCE AND TRADE SPEECHES OR CONFERENCES

LENGTH: 5153 words

HEADLINE: MEDIA AVAILABILITY WITH SENATE MAJORITY LEADER TRENT LOTT (R-MS)

LOCATION: S-207 THE CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
SEN. LOTT: Good morning. I apologize for being a little late, but we are having the final passage now on the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill.

Americans are fixing to enjoy the Fourth of July again, in the year 2000. It's a special time in America, a time for celebration. And like most Americans, I'm looking forward to being with my family and being in my home state and celebrating this special occasion.

I think there's also reason to celebrate the things that we've been achieving here in the Congress this year and over the years. If I had any description I would assign to our work here, I would call it "first things first." We're trying to focus on the important things, the big things, and a lot of other issues that are also important, but keeping our priorities in order. You know, if you're a family out across this country, if a you're a small business man or woman or laborer, you're trying to raise children, you try to have things you focus on, things you must accomplish; that you try to instill in your children principles of freedom and democracy and opportunity. And I think we need to do that here in the Congress, here in Washington -- focus on the big things and do the big things first. So that's that we've been working on this year and over the past several years. So what are those things?

First of all, for years and years we talked about the need for the federal government to be fiscally responsible; to balance our budget, to live within our means. Men and women all across this country, families and businesses and laborers, they have to do that, why shouldn't the Congress? Well, for the third year in a row we are going to have a balanced budget in the federal government. Washington is not going to spend more than it takes in, and that is a significant achievement, and we put that high on our order of priorities.

Secondly, we do now have surpluses, and we've been reducing the national debt. We've already reduced it by $150 billion over the last couple of years, and we expect to reduce it probably a minimum of $175 billion more this year. So protect those surpluses, make sure that we apply a good portion of it to reducing the national debt.

We're also building a fire wall around the programs that our seniors depend on and that our children hope will be there when they get there. Last year, for the first time since 1965, we did not spend a penny of the Social Security trust-fund taxes that come into the government. We put in a lockbox. We couldn't get the Senate Democrats to agree to pass the legislation that mandated it, but that is what we have achieved. And now we are actually moving to legislation that would further lock it in. And we have locked it in as surely as we have put it in a box and turned the key.

Social Security is going to be protected by this fire wall. And now so is Medicare. We had this unique opportunity, because of the surpluses that are being achieved by this dynamic economy in America, to provide protections and guarantees that Social Security funds are spent for Social Security and nothing else, and that Medicare funds will not be used to pay for other programs or to be spent for anything but Medicare. Now that also is, I think, a significant achievement.

We are going to continue to work to find ways to return part of this surplus to the people that earned it. There is a surplus in Washington. There are all kind of great quotes from former presidents. In fact, the only president born on the Fourth of July once said that, you know, essentially money that is held in Washington for a surplus, or to be spent, is equivalent to stealing it. And we need to find ways to return more of the money to working men and women and families all across this country.

At a very minimum, shouldn't we make the tax code fairer? Shouldn't we eliminate the marriage penalty tax? The answer is yes.

In the Senate, we are going to follow the example set by the House of Representatives. And we are going to vote, and we are going to pass, legislation by the 15th of July, that will finally eliminate the marriage penalty tax, and it's going to go to the president. And we are going to see whether he means what he said, in the State of the Union, that he wanted to get rid of the marriage penalty tax. It's going to be on his desk; we should do that.

We are going to have a vote on eliminating the death tax. The House of Representatives -- once again, the Republicans showed real leadership. They passed overwhelmingly, a bill to get rid of the death tax, and 65 Democrats voted for it. And a lot of people said: "Well, we don't understand. Only 2 percent of the American people would be affected by this. Why this tremendous vote in the House of Representatives?" It's real simple, real simple -- the American people have got it figured out; it's Washington that hasn't got it figured out -- and that is, this is a blatantly unfair tax.

Everybody would like to be economically in the condition where they might have to worry about this death tax. But the idea -- regardless of race or sex or financial situation, the idea that the federal government is going to reach beyond the grave and grab half of everything that you have earned in your lifetime and tax it, take half of it -- people don't like that. And so that's why they had that vote in the House, and that's why we're going to have a vote in the Senate the first week we're back in July.

And you know, when you talk about the fact that we still have a tax on telephone bills that was passed to pay for the Spanish-American War, people don't believe it. They shake their head in disgust. And it's almost humorous, it's so ridiculous.

So we're going to try to return surplus, a part of this surplus, to American people -- at least those things that make the tax code so blatantly unfair.

And we're also going to continue to work to change and turn around and correct the mistakes that have been made in the defense of our country. National security is being adversely affected by a decline in morale and recruits, in retention, in readiness, in equipment for the future. Last year was the first time in 10 years the Congress turned that number up. We added more funding that we had the year before, after a free fall for 10 years. And we're going to do that again this year.

So those are things that we're working on, we're achieving, we're going to do again this year.

We're going to continue to pass appropriations bills. It's very tough in the Senate to do the people's business, to pass appropriations bills, because the Senate allows all kinds of amendments to be offered -- and that's fine -- and because we've had a hard time getting the Democrats to work with us on appropriations bill. But I want to say that over the last three weeks, I think we've been working through that. We've done -- as of right now, we're voting on the sixth of the appropriations bills, to provide funds for education, for NIH. We've already voted on funds for defense and transportation. And we'll continue to focus on those when we come back in July.

So we're going to continue to focus on first things first. There will be a lot of other important issues we'll be voting on.

We've got to do something about a national energy policy. You know, Vice President Gore thinks the solution to our energy needs in America is to find ways to use less. I'm for conservation. I'm for alternative sources. But wind and solar alone won't get it. We've got to have a broad national security (sic) policy that will provide more oil, more natural gas, clean use of coal, nuclear power, with the repository to put it. We need a national energy policy.

We're going to vote on that before this year is out. I personally would like to eliminate the -- or at least suspend for the rest of this year the 18.3-cent-a-gallon federal gas tax till we can find a way to get a national energy policy and get the price of gasoline down. Americans are going to be traveling all over this country for the 4th of July period, and they're going to be mad when they fill up, whether it's $1.83 or $2.39. They are not going to like it. And they're right, because there's no need for gas prices to be that high. We're being jerked up and down by OPEC foreign oil. That should be unacceptable.

So I think we've made good progress this year. We're going to continue to work. We'll work with the House, with our colleagues on the Democratic side in the Senate. And we would like to have -- work with, be able to work with and cooperate with the president. I don't get a lot of encouraging sounds when I see some of the things he says at press conferences, but perhaps our private conversations will be a little different.

With that, I'll be glad to take your questions on issues that are still pending before the Senate, and the schedule if you have those questions.

Yes?

Q Senator Lott, you waited a long time to pass a supplemental (inaudible) -- you didn't want it to be bloated. Do you think that everything that's in it is necessary?

SEN. LOTT: No, I don't think everything that is in the Military Construction Appropriations Conference Report, and particularly the Title 2 section, or specifically the Title 2, which is the funds for the so-called "emergencies," is necessary. I think there are a lot of things that have been added along the way that probably shouldn't have been. But the big issues were addressed, I think, in a responsible way.

It does include funds for the cost to the Defense Department for this country's efforts in Kosovo. Those funds need to be replenished or, you know, we're going to have problems with training because the Army and others have been being drained to pay for this Kosovo conflict. So we need to do that. That's in there. Also, the extra cost for fuel for our military.

Also emergencies, like additional funds for the Hurricane Floyd damage and for the fire at Los Alamos. And there's a third -- oh, the Colombia drug aid is in there, too.

Now, they did add some more things that if I'd have, you know, made the final decision, I wouldn't have included them, but I'm not the -- the appropriators. They have a job to do just like I have a job to do. And I want to a commend them for staying within the range that the speaker and I asked them. We said, please don't let this grow and become so bloated that it will wind up costing the taxpayers of America another three, five or six billion dollars.

Remember, if we'd have passed it three or four months ago, this bill would wind up being $16 billion, $18 billion, maybe even $20 billion. The chairman and the members of the committee held the cost of this bill, I think, to $11.3 billion. That was a little more than I wanted it to be, but we had some extra costs had come out; additional costs for fuel for the military; additional costs -- we had not figured in the costs of the fire in New Mexico. And the Senate moved up a little bit, sort of half way toward the House on the Colombian drug money. So it cost a little bit more, but it did not exceed $12 billion, and it didn't just keep growing.

So I would be remiss if I didn't say that, on behalf of myself and, I think, the speaker, that we appreciate the fact that chairmen of the committees, Senator Stevens and Congressman Young, did live within a responsible range, and I do appreciate that very much. I think we got the important things done, and we saved the people somewhere between probably $3 billion and $5 billion for now.

Yeah?

Q Senator Lott, are you concerned when you do come back, other bills other than appropriations, that Democrats -- such as the tax bills that you've been talking about, Democrats will load them up with other amendments and you get tied down?

SEN. LOTT: No. No. I've tried to work with the Democrats to get agreements in the past on how to pass the death tax and other tax provisions, including the marriage penalty tax, and they wouldn't agree unless they could offer unrelated issues. So what I've done is gone back to the Finance Committee, the Finance Committee has reported out the marriage penalty tax elimination in a process where the amendments will have to relate to that issue, and it cannot be filibustered. It's called reconciliation -- that's a Washington word. What it means is, after 20 hours, beginning July the 13th, we are going to pass the marriage penalty tax. It cannot be amended to death and it cannot be filibustered; it is going to happen.

Now, Senator Daschle and I have been exchanging proposals of how to deal with the death tax. They want to offer a whole lot of unrelated amendments. I was willing to go to -- certainly they would be entitled to an alternative, relative amendments to the death tax. And I even said we can do a couple of non-germane amendments on both sides. If they can't agree to that, then we'll just have to get a vote on cloture. And if we get 60 votes, which I think we might, then we could go to votes and debate on the death tax itself and get it done.

So I've tried to keep the process open, but since they have not been willing to, you know, do that in such a way we can get the legislation actually passed and sent to the president, I'm going to use other procedures.

Bobbi?

I'll come back over here.

Q Senator, there's $100 million -- (off mike) -- in the supplemental, and some people call that "pork." How is pork in the bill emergency spending?

SEN. LOTT: Well, some of it's emergency. And of course, this word "pork" -- I guess it's in the eye of the beholder, depending on your feeling that there's a need for it. I mean, some of these projects in various states probably do rise to the level of being urgent or emergencies. I'm not familiar with all of them. I wasn't in on the final sessions of the meetings. The speaker and I try to give the appropriators or our members some parameters. "Please, you know, see if you can limit this, keep it emergencies, and don't exceed a certain amount." All the details has to be done by the members of that committee.

So I don't know -- I haven't see a long list. To my knowledge, I don't have anything on that list -- (laughter) -- although I couldn't swear to you. But I didn't ask for anything. (Soft laughter.)

But you know, that is subject to point of order, and we have a little difficulty out here in the Senate right now. There are a couple of senators that are saying that there are some things in here, in the -- this emergency and military construction bill that shouldn't be there, and they're threatening to have the bill read and filibustered and all that.

But my job is to, you know, just keep cool and see if we can work through a process that would allow senators that have concerns to highlight those, but to get the bill done. We need to get it done. It's been a long time coming, as it is. And I don't doubt that some of those projects would be of a questionable nature. But again, I haven't seen the list.

We actually got the final product, I think, last night, probably about 8:00 or 9:00. It's 600 pages long. I had staff assistants making copies of it until 10:00 last night. So I'm not familiar with all the details either, but it is available to members, and they have had this morning, and they're going through it right now.

Q Senator?

SEN. LOTT: Yeah?

Q Are you concerned that the Colombian money will get the United States too deeply involved in the internal problems of another country?

SEN. LOTT: I'm not concerned the way some of our colleagues are that by us trying to be helpful to the government in Colombia, that we would become too involved.

Here's the point:

This country is involved with -- well, you've got a lot of drug terrorists there that are trying to destabilize the government -- in fact, the whole region. There's where so much of the cocaine and the heroin that reaches our streets in America and poisons the minds of our children and leads to death and all kind of terrible things -- this is affecting us in America. This is not some distant place. This is not Kosovo. This is in our hemisphere.

This is affecting our children. This matters.

Now, we can wait till this problem gets even worse and we might have to be directly involved. Or we can try to help a government led by President Pastrana, that is trying to put up a fight, to put down the drug narcotraffickers, is trying to deal with this problem. And I think we ought to help them, you know.

I have reservations, as I've expressed in the past, about some of our involvements around the world because I really have questioned: "Where is America's national security interest? How does this directly affect America?" And it's been very difficult to justify some of that.

This is a case where we are being impacted. We have a chance to be helpful. I have been talking about this for two years. I didn't just discover this this year. I was talking two years ago about the fact that we needed to do more.

I think that in America, we don't pay enough attention to the Caribbean and to Central America and to South America. They are our neighbors, they're in our hemisphere, there are a lot of people there. That's why I worked hard to pass, this year, the CBI Enhancement and African Free-Trade bill. I believe that freer trade, better trade, better relations with Central America and South America is in their best interests. They are moving toward democracy, they are trying to improve their economies, and it's in our interest for that to happen. So I don't share those fears. I think we need to be helpful to Colombia.

Yes?

Q Sir, in the past, the June surprise, October surprise -- whatever -- the bump-up in the projections of surpluses, have helped you all resolve differences with the White House, with Democrats, on tax cuts and spending money. There doesn't seem to have been any change, for example, in y'all's tactics, given Monday's release from the OMB. Will there be any change? And will this extra surplus help y'all to resolve the difficulties? Or do you know, are you headed where you're headed no matter what?

SEN. LOTT: Well, you know, what we try to do at the beginning of the year, is develop a budget that provides adequate funds for the various government programs that are needed, including more funds for education than we had last year, including more research funds at NIH, including more funds at Defense, including making use of the Highway Trust Fund, a whole series of things.

But you know -- and then you agree to a budget, a budget that's above the previous year. I mean, we went from -- what was it? -- about 800 -- I mean -- let me get my figures right -- $575 billion -- these may not be the exact numbers -- to over $600 billion. Now, in Washington, there is never enough: "You mean, there is more money? Great, let's spend it!" I don't share that view.

Now, if there is some emergencies or if there is an area that we really can decide we need a little more funds for, working with members of both parties, working with the president, I am not opposed to that.

I think we may want to do a little more in some of these areas, maybe do a little better job in looking after our parks in this country, maybe do a little more in education. I can do that. But I also think that this surplus is not ours. The economy of America, the people in America are creating this surplus. So I think we should make wise use of that extra money. We should use as much of it as we can to pay down the debt that we have. I think we should return as much of it as we can to the people that are paying it in Washington.

You know, if you send -- leave the money back with the people that earned it, that's called an expenditure, tax expenditure. If the people get to keep their money, that's like we're giving them something. It's not our money. And so I feel very strongly that we should give them some of that back.

So while some people in Washington see more money and surplus as, "Great news, we can spend more," I see it as, "Great news, the economy's strong, America is doing well, and Americans ought to be able to keep more of their money to pay for their needs, for their children and their home and to pay for the gas increase."

Yes, ma'am.

Q Senator, is China PNTR still on the agenda for July, and is there a date certain?

SEN. LOTT: There is no date certain on the China trade bill. I'm working on it. In fact, later on today I'm going to ask consent that we bring up the Thompson bill dealing with China proliferation separately and that we try to bring it up on Monday the 10th, the day we come back. I hope we can get an agreement to do that. If there's a rejection, I'll try to work out some agreement, and I'll try again later on today or I'll try again when we come back to get a date on that. That is an issue that we need to get considered before we go to the bill itself so that it won't threaten the bill in such -- if it should be added, of course, then it would have to go back to the House.

Once we work through that and once we get more of the people's business done -- you know, we've got to do the Interior appropriations bill, the Agriculture appropriations bill, the Housing and Veterans bill. So we have a lot of work to do, and I'm hoping, you know, that we can work through that and get some understandings from the president about how we would get that work completed and get the China bill done, too.

I'm for it; the Senate is for it. We'll get it done. It's not a question of if, it's just a question of when. I've made no commitment on a specific date.

Yes, Ma'am?

Q Senator Lott, how does the veto -- (off mike) -- bankruptcy bill change your tactics? Are you going to push to a blind veto?

SEN. LOTT: I would like for us to complete action on legislation that would reform the bankruptcy laws in America. There are a lot of problems with it on both sides, both from the debtor's viewpoint and the creditor's side.

I think the administration does not want to sign a bankruptcy reform bill because I think their attitude is, you know, Americans shouldn't necessarily have to pay their debts. That wasn't the way I was raised in a blue collar family in Pascagoula, Mississippi, you know. My dad would have never have considered, you know, trying to get out of paying what he owed to people. But yet, that mentality has been encouraged by our bankruptcy laws. We need reform.

The president has sent me a second threatening veto letter, which I don't appreciate too much, in which he said, you know, "I'll veto it unless you change this, this and this." Well, I'm always willing to see if we can work out a couple of those things. In fact, I have some sympathy with at least one of the things he's talking about. And the second one, we maybe could work out something further. The third one, we've done the best we can; this is it.

You know, they want to turn the bankruptcy bill into an abortion bill. Excuse me? You know, how did that even get on this bill? But, you know, we've got a reasonable -- you should not be able to take bankruptcy to get out of a responsibility you have because of violence, I don't care whether it's against an abortion clinic or a grocery store. I think, you know, if you try to duck your responsibility, that's not a fair use of the bankruptcy bills either.

But we will continue to see if we can find a way to get it completed and get it on a vehicle that will go to the president. Hopefully, he'll decide that he can sign it. If he can't or if he doesn't, we'll try to override the veto. And then, if he vetoes it and we don't override it, next year we'll pass it again, and hopefully we'll have a president that will improve the bankruptcy laws in America.

Yes?

Q Senator, in terms of the gas tax, are you considering bringing up Senator Hutchison's bill to repeal the gas tax -- (off mike)?

SEN. LOTT: Well, you know, we had a vote in the Senate earlier this year to suspend the 4.3 cent-a-gallon gasoline tax that was added by one vote, Vice President Gore's vote, back in, I think, 1993, on an immediate basis, for the balance of the year, and also to suspend the full federal gas tax of 18.3 cents a gallon, if gasoline prices reached an average of $2.00 a gallon for the balance of the year, and it would not come out of the highway trust fund.

Some people thought, well, the language doesn't guarantee that it won't come out of the highway trust fund, so we're going to look to see if we can modify that language so there's no doubt that this would be temporary while we've got this, you know, jack-up in the price of gasoline, and that would not come out of the highway trust fund, it would come out of the surplus that is available to us.

We will look for an opportunity to vote on that in July but, obviously, we won't get it done until after the Fourth of July recess.

Yes?

Q Senator, how important is it to the GOP agenda that the Republicans recapture the White House in the fall, and what will the Congress do to try to make that happen?

SEN. LOTT: Well, obviously we would like very much to have George W. Bush win this election, and have a president in the White House that we can work with on a daily basis. I think he's doing a good job emphasizing things like education, the alternatives he has on education.

He has stepped up to the fact that we need to do something more on Social Security to make sure that it's going to be there not just for my mother -- bless her heart, in her retirement home in Pascagoula but it's going to be there for my daughter and son and my grandchildren. And we can't -- unless we do something, it won't be there after -- I don't remember the exact date. But we want to make sure it's going to be solvent way on out into the rest of this century.

So I think he's doing a good job. I would like to have a president we can work with on these various issues to pay down the debt, to give tax relief to working Americans, to rebuild our defense, to strengthen education in America, make sure that our kids are going to get what they need, to deal with the health care needs in America. Health care is changing dramatically in America, and it's wonderful, in a way, because there are so many more technical opportunities, you know, and pharmaceuticals that are available. And yet accessibility is sometimes a problem; cost is a problem. We're going to have to deal with these next year, and I would like to have a president where we could get something done, actually get it signed into law.

So what can we do to help with that? Well, all we can do, as I said, tend to our business, try to get our work done, be helpful where we can. But in the end, you know, that has to be done by the candidates for president.

Q Does that mean you don't think it will be done this year?

SEN. LOTT: What?

Q The prescription drug issue.

SEN. LOTT: Oh, no, no. I didn't mean to refer that it won't be done this year. It would certainly, you know, be more helpful if we had a president who was working with us to try to get it done in a way that will actually provide help to the people that really need it -- elderly retired people -- instead of trying to have another government-run program, universal care, universal subsidies for everybody, instead of directing it to people that are low-income retirees.

We're trying to deal with it now, but there's a lot of doubt in my mind about whether there's a desire in a lot of camps in this city, Democrats in the House, and the White House, to get the issue dealt with or to have an issue for the campaign. I would like to actually get it done in a responsible way. The president says, "Do it my way, and we can work out a deal." Well gee, thanks a lot! So -- but we're prepared to keep working on it.

Yes, I don't believe you've asked a question, have you?

Q Yes, Senator Lott, last night, in the middle of the night, the House passed a measure by Tom Campbell to give doctors collective bargaining rights against private insurers, HMOs. Is that something you would support? And is that something you think has a chance of going through the Senate?

SEN. LOTT: Well, I always like to take a look at, you know, the final product. That's not something I would support at all. But --

Q Why not?

SEN. LOTT: Well, I just don't think that is something we ought to be moving toward.

You know, I don't think we need more lawsuits in America. And I don't think we need more, you know, labor unions in America. And that's basically what they're trying to do. So I certainly don't look on it favorably. And I won't be trying to find a way to pass it, I'll tell you that.

Yes, sir, last question. Then I have to go to the floor.

Q There is a lot of opposition to Senator Thompson's proposal both here in the Senate, as well as the White House.

SEN. LOTT: Yeah.

Q Even though there is a lot of effort being made to actually have a vote, can you talk about what happens after that vote? I mean, does the issue sort of just die here?

SEN. LOTT: Well, I can't guarantee Senator Thompson what the result will be. I think he is on a very important point:

Nuclear weapon proliferation by China has been going on -- it may be going on this very moment -- and could be a problem in the future. Shouldn't we try to monitor that? Shouldn't we take actions, if in fact they are doing some of those things?

But once it comes -- all I can do is try to get it set up in such way where the Senate can consider it separate from the trade bill itself. Then we'll have a vote. It will pass, or it will fail. If it passes, it goes to the House. And they will decide whether they can take it up, although I have encouraged them to be prepared to take it up, and vote on it. And it might pass or fail, or they might change it. It might have to go to conference; it might not get out of conference. It might be vetoed. I can't speculate on all the "what might happen."

But I do think it is a serious issue. It could be a problem if it is added as an amendment. It would be a problem; it would be added as an amendment to the China trade bill. I am trying to find a way to have it considered separately.

I just spoke to Senator Wellstone, because I thought he was going to object to that, to see if I could work out his objections. He indicated he probably wouldn't object to it, so I thought that was a positive note. I am going to try to get an agreement on that later on today. And it -- we may not be able to get it agreed to. He may not be happy with the way it works out.

And in the end, Senator Thompson has to make up his mind, you know, how he is going to deal with it. But it's an issue that I have been concerned about. And I hope we can get it resolved, as to when it would come up, today. And we will take it up when we come back.

Thank you. And have a good Fourth of July.

END

LOAD-DATE: July 1, 2000

Document 11 of 18.


Search Terms: Abortion AND Bankruptcy Reform, House or Senate or Joint
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase: