Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the amendment authorizes grants to be made on a competitive basis to try to establish security technology systems and other devices and programs to help deal with this problem. The amendment has been reviewed on this side of the aisle, and we have no objection to having a voice vote.

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, I understand that the United States Department of Agriculture estimate includes $5 million for the Chino Dairy Preserve in San Bernardino County. I support this appropriation.

Mr. COCHRAN. I would be happy to agree to the amount necessary to cover disaster assistance under the Emergency Watershed and Flood Prevention Program for Georgia in the wake of its recent flooding and tornado damage. In response to the second question, it is my understanding currently that the agricultural disaster needs of Georgia will be sufficiently addressed with a total supplemental appropriation of $100 million in the Emergency Watershed and Flood Prevention account and $60 million in the Emergency Conservation Program. So, yes, Georgia's needs will be accommodated, and the Senator's work on behalf of his state is appreciated.

Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator from Georgia is correct with regard to the Emergency Conservation Program. Officials at the Department of Agriculture have reported that the $60 million that we provided for this program will be more than sufficient to address Georgia's disaster needs. Regarding the Emergency Watershed and Flood Prevention program, officials have reported that Georgia will require approximately $25 million, according to the current estimates.

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment provides $222,000 to cover the cost of additional boll weevil eradication loans. This will correct a shortfall in the fiscal year 1998 appropriation due to an interest rate subsidy miscalculation. The additional amount provided by this amendment will maintain the fiscal year 1997 $40 million loan level in fiscal year 1998. These loans are used to enhance the funding of the Boll Weevil Eradication Program and are made to the participating States' individual Boll Weevil Eradication Foundations. The applications for the loans are not made until April when the need for the actual money during the planting season can be determined by farmers. This procedure is in response to the Farm Services Agency's concerns that the funds be utilized when received rather than deposited for future use. At a recent Mid-South Boll Weevil Action Committee meeting, the committee agreed that applications will be made for the use of approximately $40 million and this money will be needed in fiscal year 1998. Again, I wish to reiterate that this amendment is only for a small amount and is necessary to maintain this program at its current level.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment provides $8.7 million in assistance to farmers whose trees and vineyards were lost or damaged as a result of natural disasters. The Tree Assistance Program (TAP) provides assistance for the cost of replanting, reseeding, or repairing damage to trees, including commercial trees, orchards, and vineyards. This assistance has been extended to producers in past years. Funding for this program was not included in the Administration's disaster funding request. However, based on discussions with Members from the affected States and the Department, there is an apparent need for this program. This program is not intended to duplicate assistance for tree losses covered by programs of the United States Forest Service. amendment no. 2072 On page 18, following line 5, insert the following: An additional amount for emergency levee repairs at Suisun Marsh, California to be conducted at full Federal expense, $1,100,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary of the Army is authorized and directed to obligate and expend the funds appropriated for the Suisun Marsh, California levee repair to proceed with engineering and design and reconstruction if the Secretary of the Army certifies that such work is necessary to provide flood control benefits in the vicinity of Suisun Marsh, California: Provided further, That the Corps of Engineers shall not be responsible for the future costs of operation, repair, replacement or rehabilitation of the project: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available only to the extent an official budget request of $1,100,000, that includes designation of the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I make the following announcements at the request of the majority leader. Tomorrow, the Senate will resume consideration of the NATO expansion treaty, with amendments to the resolution of ratification being offered throughout the day. It is expected that Senator Hutchison of Texas will offer an amendment tomorrow, and any other Senators with amendments are encouraged to contact the managers with their amendments. As earlier stated, it is hoped that the Senate will be able to make considerable progress on the treaty. In addition, the Senate may consider any other legislative or executive business cleared for Senate action, although, as previously announced by the majority leader, no rollcall votes will occur during Friday's session. The next vote will occur at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, hopefully in relation to an amendment to the NATO treaty. Also, the second cloture vote scheduled for this evening was postponed to occur on Tuesday, March 24, in an effort to work on an agreement for an orderly handling of the bill. Therefore, a second cloture vote will occur on the Coverdell A+ bill on Tuesday if an agreement cannot be reached in the meantime.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m. on Friday, March 20, and immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate then proceed to executive session to resume consideration of Treaty Document No. 105-36, dealing with NATO expansion.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Nos. 538, 539, and 540, en bloc.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill to make it the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense system as soon as technology permits. I am pleased that the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, is joining me as cosponsor of this legislation, the American Missile Protection Act of 1998. A new type of ballistic missile threat is emerging in the world today, one that derives not from a cold war strategic balance but from the increasing proliferation of ballistic missile technology, from the stated desire of some nation states to acquire such delivery systems, and from their evident progress in doing so. Last year, the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services held a series of 11 hearings examining proliferation-related issues. The evidence from those hearings forms the basis for the findings in this bill. First, we found, and this bill recites, that the threat of weapons of mass destruction delivered by long-range ballistic missiles is among the most serious security issues facing the United States. There is widespread agreement on this. For the last 4 years, the President has annually declared that the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and the means of delivering such weapons, constitute ``an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.'' And the Senate said in legislation in 1996 that ``it is in the supreme interest of the United States to defend itself from the threat of limited ballistic missile attack, whatever the source.'' The second finding in the bill is that the long-range ballistic missile threat to the United States is increasing. The leaders of several rogue states have stated their belief that missiles capable of striking our territory would enable them to coerce or deter the United States, and they have declared their desire and intent to acquire these delivery systems. Ballistic missiles are increasingly the weapon of choice. They were used only once between World War II and 1980, but thousands have been fired in at least six conflicts since 1980. Furthermore, the clear trend is toward missiles with greater range. For example, since the early 1980s, North Korea has progressed from having to purchase 300-kilometer-range Scud missiles to developing its own 6,000-kilometer-range ballistic missile, which the intelligence community says may be capable of striking Alaska and Hawaii in less than 15 years. Iran's progress in developing extended range missiles has been dramatic and sudden, posing a new threat to U.S. forces in the Middle East. The technological advances of the information age have made vast amounts of previously classified, arcane technical information available to anyone with Internet access. Advances in commercial aerospace have made once-exotic components and materials commonplace and more easily obtainable, and the demand for space-based telecommunications has vastly increased demand for space launch vehicles. These developments mean that the technical information, hardware, and other resources necessary to build ballistic missiles are increasingly available and accessible worldwide. So, too, is scientific and technical expertise from Russia and China, which have been primary suppliers of equipment, materials, and technology related to weapons of mass destruction. Efforts by the administration to stop such assistance from these two countries have not been successful. America's well-known vulnerability serves to feed this growing threat. As long as potential adversaries know we cannot defend ourselves against these weapons, they have every incentive to acquire or develop them. The third finding in the bill is that the ability of the United States to anticipate the rate of progress in rogue ballistic missile programs is questionable. In the past, the United States has been surprised by the technical innovation of other nations, particularly with respect to ballistic missiles. There are many reasons for this, including help from other nations and the willingness of some states to field systems with lower accuracy requirements than would be acceptable to the United States. In both cases, the result can be progress that is more rapid than expected. Just 2 months ago, for example, the Director of Central Intelligence stated, ``Iran's success in getting technology and materials from Russian companies, combined with recent indigenous Iranian advances means that it could have a medium-range missile much sooner than I assessed last year.'' That year, last year, in 1997, Mr. Tenet testified that Iran could have such a missile by 2007, the year 2007. While he didn't say how much sooner than 2007 when he testified recently, State Department officials have testified since then that Iran could develop this missile this year, 9 years earlier than had been predicted only a year ago. Iran's rapid progress demonstrates how external assistance can affect the pace of missile programs. And, of course, predicting the amount of outside assistance any nation will receive is nearly impossible. The CIA has recognized this difficulty, stating recently to the Senate that, ``gaps and uncertainties preclude a good projection of exactly when `rest of the world' countries will deploy ICBMs.'' This bill's fourth finding is that the failure to prepare a defense against ballistic missiles could have grave security and foreign policy consequences for the United States. An attack on the United States by a ballistic missile equipped with a weapon of mass destruction would be catastrophic, inflicting death and injury to potentially thousands of American citizens. Even the threat of such an attack could constrain American options in dealing with regional challenges to our interests, deter us from taking action, or prompt allies to question America's security guarantees. All of this would have serious consequences for the United States and international stability. The fifth finding is that it is imperative for the United States to be prepared for rogue nations acquiring long-range ballistic missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction. The Senate, in its resolution of ratification for the START II treaty, declared that ``. . . because deterrence may be inadequate to protect the United States against long- range ballistic missile threats, missile defenses are a necessary part of new deterrent strategies.'' Former Defense Secretary Perry said in 1994 that we have an opportunity to move from ``mutual assured destruction'' to ``mutual assured safety.'' And in 1997, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy testified in the Senate that we ``are quite willing to acknowledge that if we saw a rogue state, a potential proliferant, beginning to develop a long-range ICBM capable of reaching the United States, we would have to give very, very serious attention to deploying a limited national missile defense.'' Mr. President, our Nation's interests will be served better being prepared 1 year too soon rather than 1 year too late. This bill's sixth and final finding acknowledges the United States has no defenses deployed against weapons of mass destruction delivered by long-range ballistic missiles and no policy to deploy such a national missile defense system. We have only a policy to wait and see. The bill in its final paragraph provides, ``It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as technologically possible, a National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate).'' This policy statement accomplishes two things. It sends a clear message to any rogue state seeking ballistic missile delivery systems that America will not be vulnerable to these weapons indefinitely. And, second, it affirms that the United States will take the steps necessary to protect its citizens from missile attack. That is what the bill is. That is what it says. Now, let me briefly say what it is not. It is not a referendum on the ABM Treaty. It does not prescribe a specific system architecture. It does not mandate a deployment date, only that we deploy as soon as the technology is ready. It is not a directive to negotiate or cooperate on missile defense programs. It does not initiate studies or reports. Nor is it a declaration that the only weapon of mass destruction threat to the United States is from weapons delivered by long-range ballistic missiles--other delivery methods are also of concern but we have programs in place to defend against those threats. This bill is designed to deal only with the accelerating proliferation threat. In his State of the Union Address President Clinton said, ``preparing for a far off storm that may reach our shores is far wiser than ignoring the thunder 'til the clouds are just overhead.'' He wasn't talking about national missile defense, but his words do apply precisely to this dilemma. We are hearing the thunder now, and the time has come to declare to our citizens and to the world and to demonstrate by our actions that the United States will not remain defenseless against ballistic missiles. That should be our policy and this bill states that it is our policy. A letter to all Senators is going out inviting cosponsors to join us when we reintroduce the bill within the next 2 weeks. I ask unanimous consent a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill to make it the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense system as soon as technology permits. I am pleased that the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, is joining me as cosponsor of this legislation, the American Missile Protection Act of 1998. A new type of ballistic missile threat is emerging in the world today, one that derives not from a cold war strategic balance but from the increasing proliferation of ballistic missile technology, from the stated desire of some nation states to acquire such delivery systems, and from their evident progress in doing so. Last year, the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services held a series of 11 hearings examining proliferation-related issues. The evidence from those hearings forms the basis for the findings in this bill. First, we found, and this bill recites, that the threat of weapons of mass destruction delivered by long-range ballistic missiles is among the most serious security issues facing the United States. There is widespread agreement on this. For the last 4 years, the President has annually declared that the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and the means of delivering such weapons, constitute ``an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.'' And the Senate said in legislation in 1996 that ``it is in the supreme interest of the United States to defend itself from the threat of limited ballistic missile attack, whatever the source.'' The second finding in the bill is that the long-range ballistic missile threat to the United States is increasing. The leaders of several rogue states have stated their belief that missiles capable of striking our territory would enable them to coerce or deter the United States, and they have declared their desire and intent to acquire these delivery systems. Ballistic missiles are increasingly the weapon of choice. They were used only once between World War II and 1980, but thousands have been fired in at least six conflicts since 1980. Furthermore, the clear trend is toward missiles with greater range. For example, since the early 1980s, North Korea has progressed from having to purchase 300-kilometer-range Scud missiles to developing its own 6,000-kilometer-range ballistic missile, which the intelligence community says may be capable of striking Alaska and Hawaii in less than 15 years. Iran's progress in developing extended range missiles has been dramatic and sudden, posing a new threat to U.S. forces in the Middle East. The technological advances of the information age have made vast amounts of previously classified, arcane technical information available to anyone with Internet access. Advances in commercial aerospace have made once-exotic components and materials commonplace and more easily obtainable, and the demand for space-based telecommunications has vastly increased demand for space launch vehicles. These developments mean that the technical information, hardware, and other resources necessary to build ballistic missiles are increasingly available and accessible worldwide. So, too, is scientific and technical expertise from Russia and China, which have been primary suppliers of equipment, materials, and technology related to weapons of mass destruction. Efforts by the administration to stop such assistance from these two countries have not been successful. America's well-known vulnerability serves to feed this growing threat. As long as potential adversaries know we cannot defend ourselves against these weapons, they have every incentive to acquire or develop them. The third finding in the bill is that the ability of the United States to anticipate the rate of progress in rogue ballistic missile programs is questionable. In the past, the United States has been surprised by the technical innovation of other nations, particularly with respect to ballistic missiles. There are many reasons for this, including help from other nations and the willingness of some states to field systems with lower accuracy requirements than would be acceptable to the United States. In both cases, the result can be progress that is more rapid than expected. Just 2 months ago, for example, the Director of Central Intelligence stated, ``Iran's success in getting technology and materials from Russian companies, combined with recent indigenous Iranian advances means that it could have a medium-range missile much sooner than I assessed last year.'' That year, last year, in 1997, Mr. Tenet testified that Iran could have such a missile by 2007, the year 2007. While he didn't say how much sooner than 2007 when he testified recently, State Department officials have testified since then that Iran could develop this missile this year, 9 years earlier than had been predicted only a year ago. Iran's rapid progress demonstrates how external assistance can affect the pace of missile programs. And, of course, predicting the amount of outside assistance any nation will receive is nearly impossible. The CIA has recognized this difficulty, stating recently to the Senate that, ``gaps and uncertainties preclude a good projection of exactly when `rest of the world' countries will deploy ICBMs.'' This bill's fourth finding is that the failure to prepare a defense against ballistic missiles could have grave security and foreign policy consequences for the United States. An attack on the United States by a ballistic missile equipped with a weapon of mass destruction would be catastrophic, inflicting death and injury to potentially thousands of American citizens. Even the threat of such an attack could constrain American options in dealing with regional challenges to our interests, deter us from taking action, or prompt allies to question America's security guarantees. All of this would have serious consequences for the United States and international stability. The fifth finding is that it is imperative for the United States to be prepared for rogue nations acquiring long-range ballistic missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction. The Senate, in its resolution of ratification for the START II treaty, declared that ``. . . because deterrence may be inadequate to protect the United States against long- range ballistic missile threats, missile defenses are a necessary part of new deterrent strategies.'' Former Defense Secretary Perry said in 1994 that we have an opportunity to move from ``mutual assured destruction'' to ``mutual assured safety.'' And in 1997, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy testified in the Senate that we ``are quite willing to acknowledge that if we saw a rogue state, a potential proliferant, beginning to develop a long-range ICBM capable of reaching the United States, we would have to give very, very serious attention to deploying a limited national missile defense.'' Mr. President, our Nation's interests will be served better being prepared 1 year too soon rather than 1 year too late. This bill's sixth and final finding acknowledges the United States has no defenses deployed against weapons of mass destruction delivered by long-range ballistic missiles and no policy to deploy such a national missile defense system. We have only a policy to wait and see. The bill in its final paragraph provides, ``It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as technologically possible, a National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate).'' This policy statement accomplishes two things. It sends a clear message to any rogue state seeking ballistic missile delivery systems that America will not be vulnerable to these weapons indefinitely. And, second, it affirms that the United States will take the steps necessary to protect its citizens from missile attack. That is what the bill is. That is what it says. Now, let me briefly say what it is not. It is not a referendum on the ABM Treaty. It does not prescribe a specific system architecture. It does not mandate a deployment date, only that we deploy as soon as the technology is ready. It is not a directive to negotiate or cooperate on missile defense programs. It does not initiate studies or reports. Nor is it a declaration that the only weapon of mass destruction threat to the United States is from weapons delivered by long-range ballistic missiles--other delivery methods are also of concern but we have programs in place to defend against those threats. This bill is designed to deal only with the accelerating proliferation threat. In his State of the Union Address President Clinton said, ``preparing for a far off storm that may reach our shores is far wiser than ignoring the thunder 'til the clouds are just overhead.'' He wasn't talking about national missile defense, but his words do apply precisely to this dilemma. We are hearing the thunder now, and the time has come to declare to our citizens and to the world and to demonstrate by our actions that the United States will not remain defenseless against ballistic missiles. That should be our policy and this bill states that it is our policy. A letter to all Senators is going out inviting cosponsors to join us when we reintroduce the bill within the next 2 weeks. I ask unanimous consent a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 10 minutes.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, we have had a good debate, a prolonged debate, on S. 1173, the surface transportation bill, or the highway bill, as it is known in my State of Mississippi. It is now time to pass it and get to work on a conference report with the other body to meet the May 1 expiration of current law. There is a tremendous backlog of road, bridge and highway projects in every state. Some have estimated that our national investment in highways per vehicle miles of travel decreased by 56 percent during the last 25 years while vehicle travel has increased by 123 percent. This illustrates the problem and explains why we have such a serious need to address this legislation and complete our work so the states can start work on the projects this bill will fund. I am very pleased that the bill allocates the money on a much more fair and equitable basis than the current formula. Mississippi will get over 90 percent, at least, of the highway tax contributions it makes to the trust fund. That is a lot better than the 83 percent my State is now receiving. I'm also pleased that the bill gives the states more flexibility to spend the money they get from the trust fund on road, highway and other transportation projects that they identify as their priorities rather than having to abide by federal priorities that don't coincide with state needs. In Mississippi 29 percent of our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition and 39 percent of the State's bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. These conditions contribute significantly to highway accidents which have increased 6 percent during the last 4 years. In addition to the loss of life, these accidents cost Mississippi's citizens $1.3 billion per year, or $500 for every resident, for emergency services, medical costs, property damage and lost productivity. Another relevant statistic is that 77 percent of all fatal accidents were on two-lane roads and only 14 percent were on roads with four lanes or more. Money that is spent on highway improvements, such as adding lanes and shoulders, will save lives. It is also good economics. I'm confident the flexibility provided in this bill will help Mississippi solve some of its special and most serious highway and transportation problems, especially the completion of our comprehensive four lane program. Mississippi has been working for over ten years to implement this program. According to the Mississippi Department of Transportation, projects remaining to be put under contract include 30 miles of US 45, 17 miles of US 49 West, 69 miles of US 61, 25.4 miles of US 82, 54.6 miles of US 84, 24.6 miles of US 98, 58 miles of State Road 25, 33 miles on State Roads 57 and 63, and 10 miles of State Road 302. All of US 72 is now under contract and all of US 78 is now open to four-lane traffic. The specific provision of the bill that helps us in this way gives states the flexibility to use up to 22 percent of their trust fund allocations for any projects that fall within title XXIII of the U.S. Code, which covers all highway programs. There are other provisions of this legislation that are of special interest to our efforts in Mississippi to ensure that roads, highways and bridges on federal lands within the States are improved. Additional funding added to the bill as part of the committee amendment will provide $850 million in additional contract authority over 5 years for the three elements of the Federal Lands Highway Program. Funding for Parkways and Park Roads will increase by $70 million per year for fiscal years 1999-2003, and funding for Public Lands Highways by $50 million per year during the same period. This ought to provide funding to bring the Natchez Trace Parkway closer to completion and ensure some much needed improvements are made to roads in our national forests and wildlife refuge areas. Another provision of this bill that is of major interest to me and my State is the additional $450 million for funding NAFTA Trade Corridors. The I-69 Trade Corridor Highway, which will run from Canada down through the Mississippi Valley to our border with Mexico, will provide significant economic benefits to the entire region through which it passes. We expect our State of Mississippi will be one of the states through which I-69 will pass. Without this investment, the transportation infrastructure of the Mid-South region cannot accommodate the needs associated with increasing trade and commercial traffic. Growth in North American trade, as well as trade between the U.S. and the rest of the world, is supported by recent trends and current projections, particularly in the agricultural sector. U.S. agricultural exports, which were valued at $26.3 billion in fiscal year 1986, increased to $54.2 billion in 1995 and to nearly $60 billion in fiscal year 1996. We also consistently export more agriculture commodities and food products than we import. A recent USDA Agricultural Outlook publication projected ``robust growth'' in global demand for agricultural products in international commodity markets through the year 2005. It also predicted that U.S. high-value agricultural exports will continue to show strong growth, generally outpacing bulk exports and accounting for a growing share of U.S. farm exports. Every state in the I-69 Trade Corridor exports agricultural products and commodities, sharing in export-generated employment, income, and rural development. These exports generate economic activity in the non- farm economy as well. USDA estimates that each $1.00 received from agricultural exports in 1995 stimulated another $1.38 in supporting activities to produce those exports generating an estimated 895,000 full-time civilian jobs, including 562,000 in the non-farm sector. Trends in agriculture exports and the potential for their growth suggest that additional investment in transportation resources, particularly in the I-69 Trade Corridor, will provide a favorable return to the economies of all the States and communities along the route. Madam President, I commend the members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works who have worked hard to provide more funding for our transportation needs and to ensure a more equitable distribution of funds to the States, and I especially congratulate, our distinguished majority leader for his effective leadership in helping to produce a good and fair bill. This bill ought to receive an overwhelming vote of approval. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing, at the request of the Administration, a bill to provide for the correction of retirement coverage errors under chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States Code--specifically, current and former federal employees who should have been placed in the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS), but were misclassified as Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or CSRS Offset. The federal government's transition from CSRS to FERS began in 1984. As government agencies carried out the complex job of applying two sets of transition rules, mistakes were made, and thousands of employees were placed in the wrong retirement system--many learning that their pensions would be less than expected. The Administration's proposal, ``The Federal Retirement Coverage Corrections Act,'' would provide employees with a choice between corrected retirement coverage and the coverage the employee expected to receive, without disturbing Social Security coverage law. I think this bill deserves the careful consideration of the Senate. As Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the subject, I will try to ensure a thorough review of all the options for dealing with this issue. Among the provisions of the bill, are the following: (1) Generally, errors of less than 3 years would not be eligible for corrective action. (2) Social Security-covered employees who were erroneously CSRS covered or CSRS Offset covered, may elect to be retroactively under either CSRS Offset or Social Security-only coverage. (3) CSRS covered, CSRS Offset covered or Social Security-only covered employees who were erroneously FERS covered will be deemed to have elected FERS coverage and will remain covered by FERS, unless the employee declines it. (3) Generally, FERS covered employees, former employees, and annuitants who were erroneously CSRS covered or CSRS Offset covered, may elect retroactive coverage under either CSRS Offset or FERS coverage. However, this election may not be available or may be subject to adjustment under certain very limited circumstances. (5) A Thrift Plan make-whole provision to provide the earnings that are now disallowed on the employee's make-up contributions. (6) Provisions are included to deal with the retroactive application of Social Security upon the correction of a retirement coverage error in which an employee was erroneously covered by CSRS. (7) The Director of OPM is given discretionary authority to waive time limits, reimburse necessary and reasonable expenses and compensate losses, and waive specified repayments; and finally (8) Costs of the ``Retirement Coverage Error Correction Act'' would be paid from the Civil Service Retirement Fund, and OPM would be authorized to spend money from that Fund to administer the Act. I invite Senators to join in this effort to address a serious problem affecting many federal employees. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a section by section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Domenici in sponsoring the 1998 Character Counts Week resolution. As an original member of the Character Counts Coalition here in the United States Senate, it has been my honor to cosponsor Character Counts Week every year since 1994. In the past we learned the Golden Rule and were taught how to act by our parents and teachers or at Sunday School, and the community helped reinforce acceptable conduct. Today, because there are so many who don't have a chance to grow up in that kind of environment, we must develop alternative ways of teaching and learning how to behave in a free society. Former United States Deputy Under Secretary of Education, Dr. Peter R. Greer, wrote an article, called ``Teaching Virtue,'' published in Education Week, February 4, 1998. In his article, he describes his experiences in developing effective curriculum for teaching ethics and character in kindergarten through grade twelve. He found that one of the most troublesome aspects for teachers to overcome was their reluctance to identify right and wrong. He also found that teaching virtues had to be a school-wide and a community-wide commitment. The Character Counts! Coalition began as an effort to put values education at the top of the national agenda. The values are called ``Pillars of Character,'' and they are: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. The core elements of good character reflect a consensus that was reached by eminent and diverse educators and youth leaders who thought the pillars would be widely understood, accepted and effective. The Coalition is made up of over 180-member organizations who collectively pursue the goal of teaching that character does count and is essential for our nation's survival and success. Included in this group are the American Association of School Administrators, American Red Cross, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Little League Baseball, 4- H, National Honor Society and many regional and community-based organizations. They are all working to build awareness of the pillars of character and to encourage their teaching ``from the family room to the school room to the locker room.'' In my state of Mississippi, Ocean Springs is a Character Counts Community. The Chamber of Commerce sponsors programs that stress the importance of making good character traits an intrinsic part of the lives of students, teachers, administrators, and citizens. The Ocean Springs Character Counts Business Club members display Character Counts stickers in their windows and help raise funds for the Chamber of Commerce. Each year, those funds are used for programs and materials to train teachers in the Ocean Springs public schools on better ways to incorporate character education into their regular curriculum. The programs are designed for repetition and emphasize action and behavior. Youngsters are encouraged to express their thoughts about character through essays, poems, songs, artwork, posters or videos. I am very proud of the people of Ocean Springs, Mississippi. They understand that teaching good character begins at home, but it must be reinforced at school and by the entire community. Character Counts! Week is October 18-24 this year. I hope that communities will use this as a time for new and renewed commitments to character education. If we all practiced what Character Counts teaches, America would be better indeed.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today in Mississippi, funeral services were held for Andy Reese, who was a long time reporter for United Press International and later served as the public information officer of the Mississippi House of Representatives. He was a friend of mine and of many others who had the good fortune to come to know him. He was totally trustworthy, very intelligent, and dependably accurate in his reporting. Our state has suffered a great loss. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial in today's Clarion Ledger of Jackson, MS which eloquently describes his career and his wonderful qualities be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the Senate the fact that one of our finest and brightest and best-liked members of staff, from the State of Mississippi, is leaving the Senate and going back to Mississippi at the end of this month to join one of the leading law firms in our State. I am talking about John Lundy, who is chief of staff for my distinguished State colleague, Senator Lott. John Lundy came to Washington in 1987 to work as a legislative assistant on the House side of the Capitol. He distinguished himself right away with his hard work, his ability to get along with staff members and Members of the House on both sides of the aisle, as well as work effectively with Senate staffers from our State and Members of the Senate. He had a lot to do with the writing of the 1990 farm bill as a member of the staff of Larry Combest, Congressman from Texas, who is a Member of the Agriculture Committee in the House. John is originally from Leland, MS. He graduated from Mississippi State University in 1983 with a degree in agricultural economics. After graduation, he went to work as a research assistant at the Mississippi State University Delta Branch Agricultural Experiment Station in Stoneville, MS, near his hometown of Leland. He then worked for a while as a loan officer with a farm credit institution in the Mississippi Delta. When he joined Senator Lott's office, he became someone with whom I had an opportunity to work closely over the years. When Senator Lott was elected majority leader, he made John Lundy his chief of staff. John has been one of my favorites and a good friend to me and to all of the Members of our delegation. We are going to miss him and his lovely wife, Hayley, very much, and their daughter, Eliza. They are moving to Jackson, as I indicated, toward the end of this month. But I wanted to take this opportunity to let other Senators know about his decision to go back to Mississippi and to congratulate him on his distinguished service here in the U.S. Senate as a member of our staff and the House of Representatives staff as well, and to wish him all of the best in his new undertaking. I am confident that he will be a tremendous success in his new association with the law firm in Jackson. We wish him well. We will miss him. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN

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