Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. That is my hope and intent. We should be able to do that and continue to move appropriations bills, also. Again, it will take cooperation on the MILCON construction appropriations bill, which does have the military funding for Kosovo and for the fuel costs. We have the agriculture bill that is available that has, I believe, the disaster funding in it in addition to the regular agricultural appropriations programs. And the Foreign Operations bill has been reported. But we will work with the leadership as to exactly when those will come up. We will try to move through those three as quickly as we can and try to move the Africa trade bill with the CBI provisions, and the ESEA. I think those three appropriations bills and these two--the conference report and this authorization bill--will take the remainder of the time probably for the next couple weeks. We are going to stay on it.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the exemplary service and career of an outstanding naval officer, Captain William H. Lewis, upon his retirement from the Navy at the conclusion of more than 27 years of commissioned service. Throughout his distinguished career, Captain Lewis has truly epitomized the Navy core values of honor, courage, and commitment. It is my privilege to commend him for a superb career of service he has provided the Navy and our great Nation. Captain Lewis is a native of Newburgh, New York. He studied civil engineering at the Ohio State University on a Naval Reserve Officer Training Command scholarship. He also received his Master's degree in Civil Engineering at Ohio State on an Environmental Protection Agency Fellowship before being commissioned as a Navy Civil Engineer Corps officer in 1973. Captain Lewis later attended L'Universita di Perugia, Italy, and the Executive Program at the University of Michigan. His first tour of duty was at Naval Station Treasure Island as the Assistant Public Works Officer. He became Treasure Island's first Staff Civil Engineer with the commissioning of Public Works Center San Francisco Bay. He also had tours as an Assistant Resident Officer in Charge of Construction (ROICC), ROICC San Francisco Bay Area, with Western Division (WESTDIV), Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), San Bruno, California; an instructor at the Civil Engineer Corps Officers School at Port Hueneme, California; and as the Flag Aide to the Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command and Chief of Civil Engineers. In 1980, he served with the Seabees as the Alfa Company commander for U.S. Naval Mobile Construction Battalion (NMCB) SIXTY-TWO homeported in my great State of Mississippi. The MINUTEMEN were deployed to Rota, Spain where they won the Battle E and Peltier Award as the best Seabee battalion in the Atlantic Fleet and entire fleet respectively. NMCB-62 also served in Roosevelt Roads where they redeployed to build a Cuban- Haitian refugee camp at Fort Allen and was the last full battalion deployed to Diego Garcia. In 1982, he returned to WESTDIV as the Assistant Head of the Acquisition Department. In that capacity, he served as the Air Force Program Coordinator for the Space Shuttle facilities for the military Space Transportation System program and the design of the $220 million David Grant Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, California. In 1985, he was selected to be the Deputy Officer in Charge of Construction at Travis AFB on the largest firm fixed price construction contract awarded by NAVFAC that year. In 1986, he became the Staff Civil Engineer for Commander, Fleet Air Mediterranean in Naples, Italy responsible for the Navy's NATO Infrastructure Program and Project PRONTO. In 1989, he returned to Navy Public Works Center San Francisco Bay as the Production Officer and participated in the disaster recovery operations from the Loma Prieta earthquake. In 1992, he became Vice Commander at the Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Bruno, California. In 1994 he became the Commanding Officer, Engineering Field Activity, Mediterranean, Naples, Italy in support of the Fifth and Sixth Fleets and the Department of Defense's largest overseas construction program, including the Naples Improvement initiative, the bed down of the 31Tactical Fighter Wing at Aviano, Italy, and the force protection efforts at Bahrain. In 1997, he reported onboard as the Executive Officer, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southern Division (SOUTHDIV), Charleston, South Carolina. On May 14, 1998, he became the 27th Commanding Officer at SOUTHDIV. Captain Lewis' awards include the Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal (third gold star), Navy Commendation Medal (second gold star), Air Force Commendation Medal and Navy Achievement Medal (gold star). He is a member of the Society of American Military Engineers and Tau Beta Pi and is a registered Professional Engineer in the state of California. Captain Lewis is Seabee Combat Warfare qualified, a member of the Acquisition Professional Community and holds a Level III (unlimited) NAVFAC Contracting warrant as well as a Level III (unlimited) Real Estate Contracting Warrant. Captain Lewis' visionary leadership, exceptionally creative problem solving skills and uncommon dedication have created a legacy of achievement and excellence. The Great State of Mississippi has benefitted immensely from Captain Lewis' engineering leadership, both during his time as a junior officer serving with the Seabees in Gulfport, Mississippi and in his present capacity as commanding officer of SOUTHDIV. As Commander, Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Captain Lewis was instrumental in completing projects throughout the Great State of Mississippi, to include critical waterfront projects at Naval Station Pascagoula; planning and design of a future Warfighting Center at Stennis, Mississippi, and a major Navy Family Housing complex in Gulfport. Captain Lewis will retire on May 12, 2000 after 27 years of dedicated commissioned service. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I wish Captain Lewis fair winds and following seas. Congratulations on completion of an outstanding and successful career.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to say again, if I didn't say it sufficiently a moment ago, that I appreciate Senator McCain's cooperation in agreeing for us to proceed even without an amendment he had hoped to get in the next sequence. But there was objection to that. He has agreed for us to proceed without an objection. The same thing is true with Senator Ashcroft. He has had a chance to review the situation. And our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have had an opportunity to look at the substance of the amendment. There are a number of Senators who have amendments they want to have considered. We hope as we go forward they will be in the lineup at some point. For now, we are just trying to get the rest of the afternoon agreed to and debate amendments that we will also be debating on Monday. Then we will take it from there. Mr. President, let me propound the unanimous consent request again and see if we can get it cleared at this point. I ask unanimous consent that the pending second-degree amendment be laid aside, that Senator Murray be recognized to offer her amendment relative to class size, and that no second-degree amendments be in order. I further ask unanimous consent that votes occur at 5 p.m. with the time between now and then to be equally divided, and the votes occur on or in relation to the amendments in the order in which they were offered, with no second-degree amendments in order. The voting sequence is as follows: Kennedy second-degree amendment; Abraham amendment, as amended, if amended; Then the Murray amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that following those votes the next amendments in the sequence be the following, in the following order, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to a vote on or in relation to the amendments and the second-degree amendments must be relevant to the first degree they propose to amend. They are as follows: Lieberman, which is an alternative; Gregg, Teachers' Bill of Rights. I believe that would be the request.

Mr. LOTT. I am not sure exactly when that would come. Mr. President, we always try to accommodate Senators on both sides. But let me just say I would like to amend the request beyond what we have already asked to the effect that I be recognized to speak for 5 minutes to be followed by 5 minutes by Senator Leahy. I had been waiting to try to respond to some of the things that had been said on the debate before we reached this point. If I could just get 5 minutes followed by Senator Leahy, then we would go on with the regular order, if that is all right with Senator Daschle.

Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to wait until the Senator completes his remarks. I was going to try to bring the Chamber up to date on our hope of how to proceed. Senator Daschle is here.

Mr. LOTT. We are not ready to do that at this moment because we have to be sure everybody accedes, and so I will be glad to withhold.

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for allowing us to proceed with what I think is a fair agreement on how to proceed for the remainder of the afternoon. We have had good debate this week on both sides of the aisle. There is a difference of opinion. When we get our unanimous consent agreement, or when we get it propounded and hopefully get an agreement, I do want to comment on some of the things I have heard over the past hour during debate and on the pending Abraham-Mack amendment. But I think, first, it is important we get an understanding and agreement on how to proceed. Basically, the consent we would like to propound would be that the pending second-degree amendment be laid aside, and that Senator Murray be recognized to offer her amendment relative to class size, with no second-degree amendments in order, that we would ask consent for the votes to occur at 5 p.m. on the pending amendments, and the time between now and that hour be equally divided, and the votes would occur on or in relation to the amendments in the order they would be offered or have been offered. That sequence, of course, is the Kennedy second-degree amendment, the Abraham-Mack amendment, as amended, if amended, and then the Murray amendment. Then we would ask consent that the next amendments in the sequence be basically in the following order: Lieberman, as an alternative; Gregg, with regard to Teachers' Bill of Rights; and McCain, regarding sports gambling. We will see if we can get an agreement on that. If we cannot, then we will modify it in a way we hope we can get an agreement. That is basically how we would like to proceed this afternoon. I think it is a fair way to proceed. We will be able to have another 2\1/ 2\ hours, hopefully, of good debate. Then we can have some votes. Then we will have things lined up for debate on Monday. I hope that we can get in several hours of debate on the amendments that would be pending at that point--the Lieberman amendment, the Gregg Teachers' Bill of Rights, and other education-related issues about which Senators may want to talk. Then we would move toward votes on Tuesday and/or Wednesday and Thursday, if necessary. That is basically the outline of how we would like to proceed. As soon as I hear further from Senator Daschle, we will propound that UC. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, then, that the pending second-degree amendment be laid aside and that Senator Murray be recognized to offer her amendment relative to class size, and no second-degree amendments be in order. I further ask consent that votes occur at 5 p.m., with the time between now and then to be equally divided, and that the votes occur on or in relation to the amendments in the order in which they were offered, with no second-degree amendments in order. The voting sequence is as follows: Kennedy, second-degree amendment; Abraham amendment, as amended, if amended; and then the Murray amendment. I further ask consent that following these votes, the next amendments in the sequence be the following, in the following order, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to a vote on or in relation to the amendments. They are as follows: The Lieberman amendment, which is an alternative; the Gregg amendment, dealing with Teachers' Bill of Rights; and the McCain sports-related gambling issue.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senator McCain and I have discussed this matter. I understand he will be here momentarily. But I indicated to him that there might be an objection. We have now heard an objection. Therefore, I modify my consent to reflect the next two amendments be limited to the Lieberman and Gregg amendments as outlined above.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from Missouri to withhold his objection, and in order for one other Senator to arrive, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, Senator Ashcroft, and Senator McCain for their cooperation.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, along the lines of what Senator Reid just said, both sides have been working to try to keep our amendments and our debate on the underlying bill, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This is a very important bill. Of course, its title is Educational Opportunities Act. There is a lot that needs to be said. There is a lot that needs to be done to make sure our education and elementary and secondary schools are improved, that it is quality education, that it is safe and drug free. We don't have to be out looking for amendments involving China, agriculture, or higher education, guns, prescription drugs, tax cuts, or anything of that nature, all of which may be or may not be meritorious. We have plenty to do and plenty we need to think about to improve, hopefully, elementary and secondary education. I agree to an extent with what Senator Reid was saying. I appreciate his cooperation and that of Senator McCain, who agreed to go along with this request. Let me respond in the broader sense to some of the things that have been said on this bill this afternoon. I have listened to the discussion by Senators. I think it is very important to note once and for all that this is education opportunity--not for 1965, not for 1985 or 1987, because I have heard that date used in some of the debate earlier, and not even for 1995. This is about education in the new millennium. This is about how we improve the quality of education and how we improve the learning of our children for the remainder of this century. We know there are many indicators that show our children's education is not safe, that it is not drug free, that it is not improving in many areas. In fact, many test scores are static or declining. We have to do something different. We are not debating 1956, we are not debating what happened in 1985, and we certainly are not debating what happened in the early 1990s. It has been alleged that all Republicans want to do is eliminate the Department of Education. Let me just make the Record clear why there are many of my colleagues who do not agree with me on this. I am the son of a schoolteacher. I worked for a university, and I am not for, nor have I ever been for, eliminating that Department. I stood in the House of Representatives and voted for its creation. The majority leader and the Republican leader in the Senate certainly do not have that position. Let's not talk about the past. It is prolog. There have been good efforts. Some of them helped. Some of them didn't work. It is time we think a little differently. Education is in this box because there are certain groups in this country that say this is the way it is going to be, this is the way it has been, failed or succeeded, and it is going to stay. I don't agree with that. We have to start using some innovative concepts. We have to have more flexibility. We must have more accountability. We must have results. It has to be child centered, as we have been saying. Some people say we must have mandates from Washington, DC; We know best in Washington, DC, in the Senate and the bureaucrats at the Department of Education, many well-intentioned and good people. I don't accept that. I have faith in the parents at the local level. I have faith in the teachers and the administrators, yes, in the State governments. So it happens that more Governors right now are Republican than Democrat, but in the past the reverse has been true and test scores were not any better then. We have to try to find some solutions. By the way, many of the good solutions in America for creating jobs, improving education, charter schools, improving health care, are happening in the States because we have given them a little more flexibility from the Washington level. My own State of Mississippi, poor though it is, just voted 2 weeks ago, and the Governor signed into law, a 5-year teacher pay increase to bring Mississippi up to the southeastern average. That is monumental legislation. It is a big financial commitment from a small, poor State. But they are doing the job. They are trying to make some progress with teacher pay raises. I know certainly they deserve it. It is time for a change in education. We have to do better. Our scores as parents and leaders are not what they should be for improving education. If you want the status quo, go ahead and vote for title I, title II, all the programs as they are. Leave them as they are. I don't believe they are working the way they can; we don't give enough discretion as to how best to use them at the local level. If our districts and States are using them for pools, Heaven forbid, we should make sure that does not happen. We have thoughtful ideas and I think this Abraham-Mack amendment is a good amendment. First of all, this amendment is optional. Shouldn't we encourage good teachers? Shouldn't we have merit pay for the really good teachers? Shouldn't we encourage them? The alternative is, if the overall school does good and improves, give all teachers a pay raise. That means that the worst of the worst get the pay raise along with everybody else, in spite of the job that he or she has done. That is not the solution. It is not a mandate. Again, it is a choice for the States and the local education agencies to pursue quality teaching, a very important component in learning. It is optional. Let me reframe the debate a little bit. I think there is fundamental disagreement. However, I think the American people agree with the approach we are taking, an approach of more flexibility, more choice at the State and local levels, accountability, encouraging quality teachers so that they won't leave teaching as my mother did after 19 years. She didn't get rewarded when she did a good job or spent extra time. She couldn't make a decent wage in that job. I believe we have a good package. I commend the work. Let's continue to have debate on the amendments. I certainly hope the Kennedy amendment is defeated and the Abraham-Mack amendment is passed. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next votes in the series be limited to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I hope we can continue to work in a bipartisan way and agree to an orderly process. We have had good debate and good amendments. I hope we can continue to do that. I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the next sequence of amendments in order to S. 2, the offering of the amendment by Senator Lieberman be temporarily postponed and that I be recognized to offer the Lott-Gregg amendment on Monday beginning at 3 p.m. I further ask consent that the Lott-Gregg amendment be temporarily laid aside when the Senate reconvenes on Tuesday in order for Senator Lieberman to offer his amendment. I finally ask unanimous consent that when the Senate conducts the votes with respect to the two first-degree amendments, the votes occur in the original order as outlined in the consent agreement.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. No, I didn't suggest that. I am saying that members of the committee have education amendments and would like to have them offered. We have some members on both sides of the aisle now who are saying, ``I want my amendment to be next,'' and I am not inclined to be impressed with that suggestion. We need to go forward with the way we have been trying to proceed and get our work done. But, no; the way it works around here is, if you can horn your way into a debate that is underway, then that is the way it is.

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, just to facilitate the flow here, let me make sure we have some sort of a sharing of time, alternating back and forth. The Senator's proposal was 30 minutes for Senator Durbin, 10 minutes for Senators Schumer and Moynihan, and 12 minutes for Senator Feingold.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the block of time for those speakers, an equal amount of time be allocated to Senator Abraham and to myself, or my designee. I know the Senators from New York are going to talk about the Cardinal's death.

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I amend my request that Senator Abraham be recognized first, and then Senator Sessions, and any remaining time will be used by myself or my designee.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we will make it simple. I ask unanimous consent that when this block of time is completed, as outlined by Senator Reid, there be an equal amount of time on this side for me or my designee.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, I did not hear all of what he said. I was back in the Cloakroom preparing to come to the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if Senator Reid would yield, I understand that you are waiting to see the Gregg amendment. Of course, we would like to see the Lieberman alternative also. Do we have that?